Obama's budget is a nervous breakdown on paper

[saveliberty]

Reduced to vague generalizations and hope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unsustainable when, in 30 years? I don't think it's time to worry about that.

Obama offered Republicans $2 of cuts for each dollar of tax increase. Thank God they were stupid enough to refuse that offer.

You don't think it is time to worry about that? You would rather wait until it is to late to do anything and start worrying about things then? Do you think it will magically fix itself if we ignore it?

You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.

As for the bullshit spending cut for tax increase, that is bullshit.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day. Since Obama just made birth control free I don't see that happening, neither does anyone else, which is why Geithner said it is unsustainable.

Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year. Politicians like to pretend the world works that way, intelligent people laugh when people say things like that.

 

[ilia25]

You don't think it is time to worry about that? You would rather wait until it is to late to do anything and start worrying about things then? Do you think it will magically fix itself if we ignore it?

You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.

As for the bullshit spending cut for tax increase, that is bullshit.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.

Or we discover a cheap way to cure cancer through a gene therapy and it will save Medicare trillions.

Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less

You are saying that Obama offered 4 trillions cuts in his plan to spend 200 trillions more?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't know what might happen in 30 years, so yes, it might fix itself. In any case, we should at least wait until the economy is back on track.

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.

Or we discover a cheap way to cure cancer through a gene therapy and it will save Medicare trillions.

Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less

You are saying that Obama offered 4 trillions cuts in his plan to spend 200 trillions more?

Curing cancer will not wipe out diabetes, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, Parkinson's, osteoporosis, or high blood pressure. By the way, the problem is not that people die of cancer, it is that they are living longer now than they were when we first set these programs up, and the demographics are shifting from us having more people working than we do collecting benefits to the other way. We are a nation that is getting older, and we have a system that is designed to shift wealth from the working young to the non working poor, that makes the whole thing unsustainable.

Did I say that? I posted a link to his budget, and the fact that he plans to spend $47 trillion over 10 years, while cutting that spending by $2 trillion. Those numbers are real, and come from him. I did not make them up. That is $23.50 in spending for every single dollar he is cutting, and some of those cuts he is proposing are not cuts because he is counting the war we are no longer fighting as a cut in spending.

Even the other Obamazombies left the thread, you are hear all by yourself trying to argue something that is not happening. Obama did not write a budget that is cuts spending or the deficit, he never intended to. This budget is about what he wants, and that is a country that is afraid of success.

 

[Provocateur]

Another right wing loon?

Nope.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, discusses President Obama's budget proposal.
Cleaver says, “This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper. And it’s not just President Obama. I think he's put together a document that addresses education. We need to do it. Community colleges need to be upgraded. We got to have training for real jobs. We've got a lot of jobs that are going unfilled because we don't have the technology in the heads of graduating college students to deal with them."

Rep. Cleaver – Budget a 'nervous breakdown on paper' – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

Obama's budget last year received exactly, wait for it, zero votes in the Senate.


It really doesn't matter what he puts on paper, no one thinks he has a clue what he is doing, including every single Democrat.

 

[Provocateur]

Democrats are not serious about budgets, which is why they haven't drafted/passed one in over 1000 days, even when they had the House, Senate and POTUS in place.



They probably see it as oppressive to have to say limits somehow must exist, somewhere.

 

[ilia25]

In order for it to fix itself the current trend in people having fewer children would have to reverse and the US has enough young people working to support the old people who expect to get paid to sit around all day.

Or we discover a cheap way to cure cancer through a gene therapy and it will save Medicare trillions.

Apparently you think that planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less

You are saying that Obama offered 4 trillions cuts in his plan to spend 200 trillions more?

Curing cancer will not wipe out diabetes, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, Parkinson's, osteoporosis, or high blood pressure. By the way, the problem is not that people die of cancer

The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.

it is that they are living longer now than they were when we first set these programs up, and the demographics are shifting from us having more people working than we do collecting benefits to the other way.

If they will live longer and be healthy, they will postpone the retirement. The eligibility age could be raised as well.

Did I say that? I posted a link to his budget, and the fact that he plans to spend $47 trillion over 10 years, while cutting that spending by $2 trillion.

You said "planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year".

Obama does not plan to spend 47 trillion more. That was all we planned to spend. And that is why I don'tget what is your problem with that number -- you think Obama should shave the whole 47 trillion and leave the US w/o the federal government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.

Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy, it is the refusal of both parties to deal with reality. The trustee of the trust fund puts out a report that, unless corrective action is taken, Social Security will only be able to pay out 75% of promised benefits by the end of the next decade and the politicians respond by reducing the revenue stream that funds the Social Security trust fund. On what world does that make sense? All the cheap cures for diseases in the world will not fix that.

If they will live longer and be healthy, they will postpone the retirement. The eligibility age could be raised as well.

Why should they postpone their retirement? doesn't it make more sense for someone who is 65 who has worked his whole life, and has the added benefit of another 20 years of health ahead of him to finally take the time to go out and see the world? This si the same type of magical thinking that leads to payroll tax holidays that give the Social Security trust fund less money when it needs more.

If Congress is going to raise the eligibility age for retirement benefits it needs to do it now, not in 30 years when everyone is trying to retire. Of course, that is what I said way back at the beginning of this exercise in futility, and you said it could wait until these people retire to suddenly find out they have to wait another 20 years to get benefits. Take a look at what is happening in Greece if you want to see how that will work out.

ou said "planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year".

No, I said that is what politicians call a spending cut. A spending cut is when you actually spend less, not when you spend less than you planned. Try that argument with a doctor that tells you you need to lose wait, I am sure he will be happy to know you only gained 10 pounds when you were planning to gain 15.

Obama does not plan to spend 47 trillion more. That was all we planned to spend. And that is why I don't understand what is your problem with that number -- you think Obama should have eliminate the whole 47 trillion and leave the US w/o the federal government?

The projected $47 trillion in spending is not what I intend to spend, I don't have anywhere near that kind of money. When Bush was in office just 4 years ago spending was projected to be less than $2 trillion a year, Obama wants to more than double that and sustain spending at $4.7 trillion a year. I used to think Bush was profligate, I know better now. The weird thing about it is you probably thought Bush was spending way to much, but you think Obama doubling Bush is reasonable.

Trust me on this, it does not take $47 trillion to run the government. It doesn't even take $10 trillion, and I can use Obama's numbers to prove that.

 

[ilia25]

The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.

Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy

I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.

If they will live longer and be healthy, they will postpone the retirement. The eligibility age could be raised as well.

Why should they postpone their retirement? doesn't it make more sense for someone who is 65 who has worked his whole life, and has the added benefit of another 20 years of health ahead of him to finally take the time to go out and see the world?

Because SS benefits are hardly enough to see the world. Still, like I said, we will have to adjust the retirement age in these cases.

If Congress is going to raise the eligibility age for retirement benefits it needs to do it now, not in 30 years when everyone is trying to retire.

Why now? We haven't discovered the elixir of life yet.

Of course, that is what I said way back at the beginning of this exercise in futility, and you said it could wait until these people retire to suddenly find out they have to wait another 20 years to get benefits. Take a look at what is happening in Greece if you want to see how that will work out.

People in Greece are not getting their benefits cut because they suddenly live longer. We are talking about the effects of new medical breakthroughs, remember? Because you were asking what miracle could make current long term projections way too pessimistic.

ou said "planning to spend $100 more than you did last year, then saying you will only spend $98 dollars more means you are spending $2 less than you did last year".

No, I said that is what politicians call a spending cut. A spending cut is when you actually spend less, not when you spend less than you planned.

If not spend less than planned, the spend less than what? What you spend in a previous year? May be you can show me what Republican president managed to do that?

And the goal being what -- going back to the 1 million budget of 1789?

Obama does not plan to spend 47 trillion more. That was all we planned to spend. And that is why I don't understand what is your problem with that number -- you think Obama should have eliminate the whole 47 trillion and leave the US w/o the federal government?

The projected $47 trillion in spending is not what I intend to spend, I don't have anywhere near that kind of money. When Bush was in office just 4 years ago spending was projected to be less than $2 trillion a year, Obama wants to more than double that and sustain spending at $4.7 trillion a year.

You've got your numbers wrong -- in his last budget Bush proposed almost 3 trillion in spending. And his first budget calls for only 1.84 trillion.

I used to think Bush was profligate

It's not just Bush, spending increased almost every year in the US history.

Trust me on this, it does not take $47 trillion to run the government. It doesn't even take $10 trillion, and I can use Obama's numbers to prove that.

Fascinating! How do you think we can accomplish that? Eliminate SS, Medicare, all other welfare programs and military?

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is that current treatment, although inefficient, is very expensive. That is why Medicare costs are rising fast. A cheap cure will save us a lot, and we can learn to treat other conditions too.

Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy

I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.

You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life. The longer you live, the more you use in medical costs. You will simply dies 10 years later of some other overly expensive thing. Even old age is an incredibly expensive way to die.

 

[ilia25]

Let me try this again, the expensive treatment of cancer is not what is driving the entitlement programs into bankruptcy

I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.

You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.

No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.

Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.

 

[saveliberty]

I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.

You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.

No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.

Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.

You really expecting a vaccine for old age?

 

[ilia25]

You failed to realize that when people live longer - no matter what the cause - they use MORE in medical care. If cancer goes away tomorrow, Medicare costs will INCREASE. That is just a fact of life.

No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.

Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.

You really expecting a vaccine for old age?

I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.

 

[saveliberty]

No, that's not a fact, that is a pure speculation on your part. You don't know how expensive future treatments will be.

Take polio for example. This was a devastating decease and very expensive to treat -- until they came up with the vaccine costing peanuts.

You really expecting a vaccine for old age?

I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

 

[ilia25]

You really expecting a vaccine for old age?

I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

 

[saveliberty]

I am not expecting anything -- I am just saying that a lot could change in 30 years. So it would be premature to fix now the fiscal problems that are projected 30 years down the road.

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Funding entitlements doesn't stimulate the economy, it is meant for subsistance needs.

 

[The T]

Democrats are not serious about budgets, which is why they haven't drafted/passed one in over 1000 days, even when they had the House, Senate and POTUS in place.



They probably see it as oppressive to have to say limits somehow must exist, somewhere.

They'll just keep raising the debt ceiling.

 

[ilia25]

Obama has been very adamant about fixing economic problems immediately. The, "Do it now!" slogan. Why are you suggesting no plan and let everything fall where it may?

There are different kind economic problems, and they often require different solutions. Right now we need to stimulate the economy, and that means keeping up the spending and ignoring the deficits for now. If only because it is impossible to balance the budget in a depressed economy.

Funding entitlements doesn't stimulate the economy, it is meant for subsistance needs.

Any spending stimulates the economy.

 

[Katzndogz]

My goodness, someone who thinks Cloward Piven will actually be beneficial!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was talking about savings in Medicare, not in SS. And the former costs more than the latter.

Curing cancer won't help with that either, the issue there is that Congress has exempted Medicare from following the law about how much it pays every year since it was enacted.

Because SS benefits are hardly enough to see the world. Still, like I said, we will have to adjust the retirement age in these cases.

We need to do it now, not later, which is what I have been saying.

Why now? We haven't discovered the elixir of life yet.

Because if we wait we are going to screw over a lot of people who are expecting to get paid.

People in Greece are not getting their benefits cut because they suddenly live longer. We are talking about the effects of new medical breakthroughs, remember? Because you were asking what miracle could make current long term projections way too pessimistic.

No, they are getting them cut because the government cannot find the money to pay them. The same thing is going to happen here if we don't do something now.

If not spend less than planned, the spend less than what? What you spend in a previous year? May be you can show me what Republican president managed to do that?

That makes it all better, they do it to. What kind of defense is that? By the way, not being a partisan hack I know Republicans did it too, and I will call the next Republican president out if he doesn't actually cut, as in spend less, spending.

And the goal being what -- going back to the 1 million budget of 1789?

The goal being not spending more money than they government actually has.

You've got your numbers wrong -- in his last budget Bush proposed almost 3 trillion in spending. And his first budget calls for only 1.84 trillion.

*sigh* I know what Bush's budget was, I also know what Obama signed instead. Guess which one was bigger.

It's not just Bush, spending increased almost every year in the US history.

I am the one that is arguing it needs to stop here, not you.

Fascinating! How do you think we can accomplish that? Eliminate SS, Medicare, all other welfare programs and military?

SS, Medicare, and all the welfare programs are not needed to run the government, which is what I said. We can run the government on about $1 trillion a year unless we are actually fighting a war, then we can figure out how much to spend on the social programs.