Obama's 2013 Budget

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
It doesn’t take a phd in Economics to understand that consistently spending more than you bring in is not sustainable in the long run. All it takes is intelligence at the 5 year old level. [/quote]

The Republicans want you to think it is all Obama but this has been happening all my 54 years. Two Presidents had balanced budgets Johnson (DEM) Clinton (DEM)[/quote]

Tell the whole story, chum.

“Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-democrat-controlled-congress-has-balanced-federal-budget-40-years-no-republican
[/quote]

Slice it any way you like

43

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]limburg wrote:
Don’t pass it if its not balanced! and don’t raise taxes! Pretty much means someones going to be out of a job. Perhaps it should be those FDA school lunchroom inspectors.

Pittbull what has Obama done that you are happy with?[/quote]

So the wealthy should pay their fair share at no less than %90 :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Cannot tell if smiree is serious or not.

Because Obama’s math includes everybody who makes 250K in the “millionaire” bracket…225K in taxes on 250K in income.

I like your style… Comrade Pitt.

44

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
It doesn’t take a phd in Economics to understand that consistently spending more than you bring in is not sustainable in the long run. All it takes is intelligence at the 5 year old level. [/quote]

The Republicans want you to think it is all Obama but this has been happening all my 54 years. Two Presidents had balanced budgets Johnson (DEM) Clinton (DEM)[/quote]

Tell the whole story, chum.

“Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-democrat-controlled-congress-has-balanced-federal-budget-40-years-no-republican
[/quote]

Fair enough, democrat president and republican congress might be the way to go then.

46

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
It doesn’t take a phd in Economics to understand that consistently spending more than you bring in is not sustainable in the long run. All it takes is intelligence at the 5 year old level. [/quote]

The Republicans want you to think it is all Obama but this has been happening all my 54 years. Two Presidents had balanced budgets Johnson (DEM) Clinton (DEM)[/quote]

Oh I am perfectly aware that the problem extends beyond party lines :slight_smile:

47

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Fair enough, democrat president and republican congress might be the way to go then.[/quote]

I don’t hate this idea - divided government can produce good results - but, as Push notes, it depends on the Democrat. Moderate former governor of a Southern state? That’s one thing. Urban/coastal one term Senator who graded “most liberal” while in the Senate? That’s another.

48

In what since is it a budget if you are spending way more than you can afford? If I make 50k a year and make a “budget” that has me buying a million dollar home and a couple of lambo’s, it really is more like a spending list, not a budget. A budget is supposed to be income vs. expenditure. Debt is essentially betting on some unknown future income. Budgeting debt kinda defeats the purpose.

49

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
No one in here is fucking qualified to discuss a government budget (including me). We really don’t understand it, as much we’d like to think we do. That’s one of the major problems with the voting system, but, unfortunately, our voting system is the best compromise to date.[/quote]

Actually it’s pretty damn simple…when you are running deficits this large and do nothing to reign in the problems, it means we are all FUCKED.

[/quote]

Could be. Could also be that there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of.[/quote]

The hundred of thousands of gnoms they have in labor camps spinning straw to gold?

Their cousin Eddy that has a fail safe business plan?

Na, just kidding with you you are perfectly right, there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of…

The fact that you believe that those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit is positively hilarious though.

[/quote]

You are Mr. Assumptions of late! First you assume that I think America is more greedy than other places simply because I said “Yes, they’re greedy” and then this. What about my post would possibly lead you to conclude that I think I know “those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit”, or make you believe I’ve even had something like that thought cross my mind at any point?[/quote]

Um, what makes me think that is, that otherwise, your objection that there a gazillion of things that we don`t know about is entirely irrelevant.

You meant to say that they know stuff that we don`t and it is all for the best really and that we should trust our betters.
[/quote]

No, I am not saying that it’s all for the best and we should trust our betters. I am saying that WE CAN’T trust our betters because we don’t know enough about it. It’s a major flaw of the system.

50

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
No one in here is fucking qualified to discuss a government budget (including me). We really don’t understand it, as much we’d like to think we do. That’s one of the major problems with the voting system, but, unfortunately, our voting system is the best compromise to date.[/quote]

Actually it’s pretty damn simple…when you are running deficits this large and do nothing to reign in the problems, it means we are all FUCKED.

[/quote]

Could be. Could also be that there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of.[/quote]

The hundred of thousands of gnoms they have in labor camps spinning straw to gold?

Their cousin Eddy that has a fail safe business plan?

Na, just kidding with you you are perfectly right, there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of…

The fact that you believe that those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit is positively hilarious though.

[/quote]

You are Mr. Assumptions of late! First you assume that I think America is more greedy than other places simply because I said “Yes, they’re greedy” and then this. What about my post would possibly lead you to conclude that I think I know “those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit”, or make you believe I’ve even had something like that thought cross my mind at any point?[/quote]

Um, what makes me think that is, that otherwise, your objection that there a gazillion of things that we don`t know about is entirely irrelevant.

You meant to say that they know stuff that we don`t and it is all for the best really and that we should trust our betters.
[/quote]

No, I am not saying that it’s all for the best and we should trust our betters. I am saying that WE CAN’T trust our betters because we don’t know enough about it. It’s a major flaw of the system.[/quote]

Well, I dislike this a whole lot less than what I thought you were saying earlier. I still don’t really buy it, because I refuse to buy into the notion that economics is such an advanced subject that is floors biochemistry and physics…which a young person can learn to become educated very well in 4-5 years, and literate (and therefore able to judge the soundness of general ideas) in much, much less time.

In other words, I absolutely refuse to buy the idea that economics and national budget is of such a hugely complex nature that we need rocket scientists and nobody else can get a handle on it. If college kids have the intellectual capacity to master advanced chemistry and differential eq, set theory, etc. (QUITE separate from the question of their overall “maturity” level or common sense, I’m talking intellectual capacity for reasoning and analysis) then an educated adult can form a reasonable and useful analysis for the national budget.

…The game of politics by which it gets chopped up, passed, vetoed, or amended is another story altogether. I’m just talking about the topic itself.

51

Obama is in Los Angeles today, pandering for money, he is staying at the same hotel that Whitney Houston died in. Awkward.

52

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
No one in here is fucking qualified to discuss a government budget (including me). We really don’t understand it, as much we’d like to think we do. That’s one of the major problems with the voting system, but, unfortunately, our voting system is the best compromise to date.[/quote]

Actually it’s pretty damn simple…when you are running deficits this large and do nothing to reign in the problems, it means we are all FUCKED.

[/quote]

Could be. Could also be that there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of.[/quote]

The hundred of thousands of gnoms they have in labor camps spinning straw to gold?

Their cousin Eddy that has a fail safe business plan?

Na, just kidding with you you are perfectly right, there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of…

The fact that you believe that those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit is positively hilarious though.

[/quote]

You are Mr. Assumptions of late! First you assume that I think America is more greedy than other places simply because I said “Yes, they’re greedy” and then this. What about my post would possibly lead you to conclude that I think I know “those things we are not aware of are done for our benefit”, or make you believe I’ve even had something like that thought cross my mind at any point?[/quote]

Um, what makes me think that is, that otherwise, your objection that there a gazillion of things that we don`t know about is entirely irrelevant.

You meant to say that they know stuff that we don`t and it is all for the best really and that we should trust our betters.
[/quote]

No, I am not saying that it’s all for the best and we should trust our betters. I am saying that WE CAN’T trust our betters because we don’t know enough about it. It’s a major flaw of the system.[/quote]

Well, I dislike this a whole lot less than what I thought you were saying earlier. I still don’t really buy it, because I refuse to buy into the notion that economics is such an advanced subject that is floors biochemistry and physics…which a young person can learn to become educated very well in 4-5 years, and literate (and therefore able to judge the soundness of general ideas) in much, much less time.

In other words, I absolutely refuse to buy the idea that economics and national budget is of such a hugely complex nature that we need rocket scientists and nobody else can get a handle on it. If college kids have the intellectual capacity to master advanced chemistry and differential eq, set theory, etc. (QUITE separate from the question of their overall “maturity” level or common sense, I’m talking intellectual capacity for reasoning and analysis) then an educated adult can form a reasonable and useful analysis for the national budget.

…The game of politics by which it gets chopped up, passed, vetoed, or amended is another story altogether. I’m just talking about the topic itself.
[/quote]

I’m not implying that anyone on this board couldn’t learn the intricacies of government budget on a national level; I’m saying we haven’t. Accounting and economics are much easier than chemistry and physics (I’ve taken all of those), however, a year of accounting and a year of economics doesn’t even begin to scrape at international business, which is what balancing the US budget involves heavily. That’s a complex topic because it’s not just economics; it’s political power strategies.

I highly doubt anyone on this board has put in the time to begin comprehending the entirety of national budget+power strategies. That’s why we vote for people who have. However, that’s still a gamble due to our lack of knowledge. It’s a problem.

53

I understand that global economics is intricate. But its hard to convince the general populace that deficit spending is ok specially if some people are getting money they don’t deserve. Don’t get me wrong, some of the people NEED the government’s help, many of those don’t deserve it.

54

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
No one in here is fucking qualified to discuss a government budget (including me). We really don’t understand it, as much we’d like to think we do. That’s one of the major problems with the voting system, but, unfortunately, our voting system is the best compromise to date.[/quote]

Actually it’s pretty damn simple…when you are running deficits this large and do nothing to reign in the problems, it means we are all FUCKED.

[/quote]

Could be. Could also be that there are hundreds of considerations we aren’t aware of.[/quote]

none of that matters, when the ones in charge are violating the laws that govern their actions on a daily basis. It is simple, The government should stick to what is defined in it’s laws and the rest of the spending be cut. The debt might actually get paid down then.

55

[quote]Oleena wrote:

No, I am not saying that it’s all for the best and we should trust our betters. I am saying that WE CAN’T trust our betters because we don’t know enough about it. It’s a major flaw of the system.[/quote]

Well, I dislike this a whole lot less than what I thought you were saying earlier. I still don’t really buy it, because I refuse to buy into the notion that economics is such an advanced subject that is floors biochemistry and physics…which a young person can learn to become educated very well in 4-5 years, and literate (and therefore able to judge the soundness of general ideas) in much, much less time.

In other words, I absolutely refuse to buy the idea that economics and national budget is of such a hugely complex nature that we need rocket scientists and nobody else can get a handle on it. If college kids have the intellectual capacity to master advanced chemistry and differential eq, set theory, etc. (QUITE separate from the question of their overall “maturity” level or common sense, I’m talking intellectual capacity for reasoning and analysis) then an educated adult can form a reasonable and useful analysis for the national budget.

…The game of politics by which it gets chopped up, passed, vetoed, or amended is another story altogether. I’m just talking about the topic itself.
[/quote]

I’m not implying that anyone on this board couldn’t learn the intricacies of government budget on a national level; I’m saying we haven’t. Accounting and economics are much easier than chemistry and physics (I’ve taken all of those), however, a year of accounting and a year of economics doesn’t even begin to scrape at international business, which is what balancing the US budget involves heavily. That’s a complex topic because it’s not just economics; it’s political power strategies.

I highly doubt anyone on this board has put in the time to begin comprehending the entirety of national budget+power strategies. That’s why we vote for people who have. However, that’s still a gamble due to our lack of knowledge. It’s a problem.[/quote]

But it should not involve international business, and there in lies the problem, the unconstitutional globalization and centralization of money and power in our government.

56

Learned from the proposed budget Federal workers are to receive a raise.

“Federal Workers Need To Be Part Of The Shared Sacrifice”

http://news.investors.com/article/601291/201202151830/obama-wants-federal-workers-votes.htm

excerpt:

"Campaigning: The Obama budget is a miserably flawed document in so many ways. But it’s more than a mere toxic spending package. It’s also a political compact the president is hoping will generate support.

Included in President Obama’s 2013 budget is a pay raise for federal workers. Yeah, it’s only a 0.5% increase. But the federal work force is not one that deserves a raise. It’s a work force that needs to be cut.

Government workers, we are told, are civil servants. But the nation’s roughly 2.1 million federal civilian workers live more like masters. Their average compensation is twice that of private sector workers (see chart), and in terms of only wages, federal employee pay is about 60% higher ? $50,462 per year in private industry compared to $81,258 when working for Washington .

And what does the rest of the country get in return for the generous compensation enjoyed by federal workers?

Nothing, as far as we can tell.

In fact, we’d make the argument that the taxpayers are getting a negative return on their “investment.” Federal employees don’t create jobs. Nor do they produce wealth…"

57
58

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

No, I am not saying that it’s all for the best and we should trust our betters. I am saying that WE CAN’T trust our betters because we don’t know enough about it. It’s a major flaw of the system.[/quote]

Well, I dislike this a whole lot less than what I thought you were saying earlier. I still don’t really buy it, because I refuse to buy into the notion that economics is such an advanced subject that is floors biochemistry and physics…which a young person can learn to become educated very well in 4-5 years, and literate (and therefore able to judge the soundness of general ideas) in much, much less time.

In other words, I absolutely refuse to buy the idea that economics and national budget is of such a hugely complex nature that we need rocket scientists and nobody else can get a handle on it. If college kids have the intellectual capacity to master advanced chemistry and differential eq, set theory, etc. (QUITE separate from the question of their overall “maturity” level or common sense, I’m talking intellectual capacity for reasoning and analysis) then an educated adult can form a reasonable and useful analysis for the national budget.

…The game of politics by which it gets chopped up, passed, vetoed, or amended is another story altogether. I’m just talking about the topic itself.
[/quote]

I’m not implying that anyone on this board couldn’t learn the intricacies of government budget on a national level; I’m saying we haven’t. Accounting and economics are much easier than chemistry and physics (I’ve taken all of those), however, a year of accounting and a year of economics doesn’t even begin to scrape at international business, which is what balancing the US budget involves heavily. That’s a complex topic because it’s not just economics; it’s political power strategies.

I highly doubt anyone on this board has put in the time to begin comprehending the entirety of national budget+power strategies. That’s why we vote for people who have. However, that’s still a gamble due to our lack of knowledge. It’s a problem.[/quote]

But it should not involve international business, and there in lies the problem, the unconstitutional globalization and centralization of money and power in our government.
[/quote]

That’s just a fact of the modern age; ALL large governments function on a global scale. We aren’t getting around that.

59

So, Obama is still in town, and apparently a small Cessna plane gets too close to Air Force One. So much that it violated FAA airspace, and 2 f-16 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept. F-16 pilots tried to contact the pilot of small Cessna plane, but no response. The Cessna was ordered to land, and it turned out to be a plane filled with marijuana LOL. Idiot smugglers go too close and nearly got blown out of the sky.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Paul Ryan sounding pretty good here.

Also, did Geithner say we have “millions of people retiring every day” in the U.S.? That can’t be accurate, anyone know where to find these stats?