Obama Plans Higher Taxes and Spending for Election Year

[Conley]

President Obama will lay out a budget blueprint on Monday that amounts to an election-year bet that a plan for higher taxes on the rich and more spending on popular programs like infrastructure and manufacturing will trump concerns over the deficit.
Related

The new budget proposal contrasts with the deficit-cutting promises that attended the budget rollout last year and the debates that followed. Figures released on Friday indicate that the White House foresees a slightly higher deficit in the current fiscal year than the $1.3 trillion deficit of the 2011 fiscal year, even after the budget battles that dominated Washington last year.

The deficit is projected to fall to $901 billion in the fiscal year that starts in October, the first time since 2008 that the red ink would be below the $1 trillion mark. But last year, the White House had projected the 2013 deficit dropping further, to $768 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/us/politics/obamas-budget-to-focus-on-cutting-deficit-and-adding-jobs.html

We're running a 1T deficit every year. We're not even close to balancing the books on a single year. How will we ever begin to pay down the 15T? I'm becoming convinced the whole planet will just end up defaulting, with Europe going first.

The public debt has increased by over $500 billion each year since fiscal year (FY) 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008, $1.9 trillion in FY2009, and $1.7 trillion in FY2010.[3] As of January 31, 2012 the gross debt was $15.356 trillion, of which $10.572 trillion was held by the public and $4.784 trillion was intragovernmental holdings.[4] The annual gross domestic product (GDP) to the end of 2011 was $15.087 trillion (Jan 27, 2012 estimate),[5] with total public debt outstanding at a ratio of 101.8% of GDP, and debt held by the public at 70.1% of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

[MMC]

Everyone was already predicting he would be spending about 1.8 Billion over what he did last year. That is not going to change. I was trying to find where he was going to hide some of those numbers.

Plus he hired another Czar for Education I think, well actually a Czarina. As he hired some Woman to be his Advisor for Video Games. 6 digit salary too. Not to mention he just threw out all those waivers for like 37 states over No Child left behind act.

[CoLibertarian]

Deficits and debt seem to be what people wish to vote for. Power to the people!

[Peter1469]

Deficits and debt seem to be what people wish to vote for. Power to the people!

I wonder how the people who are empowered by reckless deficit spending will feel after a currency collapse. Somehow, empowered isn't the word that comes to mind.

[CoLibertarian]

I wonder how the people who are empowered by reckless deficit spending will feel after a currency collapse. Somehow, empowered isn't the word that comes to mind.

I wonder if people will learn after the system collapses. I doubt it because they still idolize Reagan (one of the worst deficit spenders).

[Peter1469]

I wonder if people will learn after the system collapses. I doubt it because they still idolize Reagan (one of the worst deficit spenders).

Right. Reagan suspended the Constitution and wrote his own budget and passed his own budget without a democratic Congress molesting that budget. :grin:

Bad Reagan.

[Conley]

Right. Reagan suspended the Constitution and wrote his own budget and passed his own budget without a democratic Congress molesting that budget. :grin:

Bad Reagan.

:laugh: C'mon now, you've got to give Reagan at least some of the blame too!

[Peter1469]

:laugh: C'mon now, you've got to give Reagan at least some of the blame too!

Sure. Reagan's first, second, and third goal was to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. His forth goal was to cut government spending.

3 out of 4 ain't bad.

[CoLibertarian]

Right. Reagan suspended the Constitution and wrote his own budget and passed his own budget without a democratic Congress molesting that budget. :grin:

Bad Reagan.


Funny how Carter, impotent Carter, was able to balance the budget with the same democratic congress.

[CoLibertarian]

Sure. Reagan's first, second, and third goal was to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. His forth goal was to cut government spending.

3 out of 4 ain't bad.


At least that is a more honest explanation of what Reagan was really about.

[MMC]

Funny how Carter, impotent Carter, was able to balance the budget with the same democratic congress.


At the end of his administration, Carter had substantively increased both unemployment, but reduced some of the deficit, but had ultimately perpetuated the recession.

[MMC]

In his inaugural address he said: "We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems.

That which the Democrats purposely decided to forget.

[CoLibertarian]

At the end of his administration, Carter had substantively increased both unemployment, but reduced some of the deficit, but had ultimately perpetuated the recession.


Look up your history - not the revisionist one perpetuated by the Reagan worshipers. Carter was faced with stagflation - high unemployment and high inflation. Volker, under Carter, made the tough choice of reducing money supply knowing full well that it would hurt the expansion of the economy. Volker made the Reagan recovery possible by strengthening the money supply at the cost of Carter being unpopular. I wish we had people now in government that could make those equally tough decision.

[CoLibertarian]

In his inaugural address he said: "We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems.

That which the Democrats purposely decided to forget.

Carter was a good man - but a horrid politician. He was undermined from the beginning by his own party because he was not a DC insider.

[Peter1469]

Funny how Carter, impotent Carter, was able to balance the budget with the same democratic congress.

That Democratic Congress also declared that Carter's budgets were DoA, correct?

[Peter1469]

At least that is a more honest explanation of what Reagan was really about.

He also wanted to control spending outside of defense. Congress refused and wanted to increase non-defense spending as much as defense spending, or more.

[Peter1469]

Look up your history - not the revisionist one perpetuated by the Reagan worshipers. Carter was faced with stagflation - high unemployment and high inflation. Volker, under Carter, made the tough choice of reducing money supply knowing full well that it would hurt the expansion of the economy. Volker made the Reagan recovery possible by strengthening the money supply at the cost of Carter being unpopular. I wish we had people now in government that could make those equally tough decision.Reducing the money supply was indeed the answer to Carter's problems. It would have helped with out problems since 2008. But Carter helped create the problem by increasing government spending and enacting voluntary price and wage controls. They didn't try to reduce the money supply until 1979.

[CoLibertarian]

Reducing the money supply was indeed the answer to Carter's problems. It would have helped with out problems since 2008. But Carter helped create the problem by increasing government spending and enacting voluntary price and wage controls. They didn't try to reduce the money supply until 1979.

Absolutely - and that is what killed Carter with the misery index. BTW the price and wage controls came under Nixon - not Carter.

The fact is that Carter was hit with an oil embargo (with prices tripling in some cases), a nation defeated, and stagflation. Carter made the decision to hire Volker - perhaps the only decent Fed Chairman. Volker made the tough decision to reduce the money supply during tough times in order to defeat inflation first. That is what allowed the Reagan recovery to happen - not the mythical Reagan Tax cuts and deregulation.

BTW who was it that fired Volker and why?

[CoLibertarian]

That Democratic Congress also declared that Carter's budgets were DoA, correct?

Again - it seems as though a Democratic Congress and the horrid Democrat Carter were able to balance the budget. Thus why couldn't Reagan do the same with far fewer Democrats in congress if the Democrats are the party of spending?

[CoLibertarian]

He also wanted to control spending outside of defense. Congress refused and wanted to increase non-defense spending as much as defense spending, or more.

Reagan was emphasizing typical Keynesian policy - spend our way out of a recession. Yes he had the goal of defeating the Soviet Union - but he was being used by the MIC to increase government involvement into the economy. What Reagan did is just as bad as what Obama did with Obamacare.

[MMC]

That Democratic Congress also declared that Carter's budgets were DoA, correct?

Thats is correct Peter. Moreover he increased spending. Screwed Up with the Panama Canal. he also terminated the wheat deal with Russia, which would have established trade with Russia and lessened cold war tensions. In doing so it marked the beginning of all the hardships that took place with the American Farmers and loss of jobs.

Carter has arguably been a deteriment to freedom, democracy and the American Ideal as he was during his tenure as President.


Oh, thats despite being a good man!

[MMC]

Absolutely - and that is what killed Carter with the misery index. BTW the price and wage controls came under Nixon - not Carter.

The fact is that Carter was hit with an oil embargo (with prices tripling in some cases), a nation defeated, and stagflation. Carter made the decision to hire Volker - perhaps the only decent Fed Chairman. Volker made the tough decision to reduce the money supply during tough times in order to defeat inflation first. That is what allowed the Reagan recovery to happen - not the mythical Reagan Tax cuts and deregulation.

BTW who was it that fired Volker and why?

As President, Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy) and the Department of Education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education). He established a national energy policy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States) that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Camp_David_Accords), the Panama Canal Treaties (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Panama_Canal_Treaties), the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks) (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone) to Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

:rollseyes:

[CoLibertarian]

Thats is correct Peter. Moreover he increased spending. Screwed Up with the Panama Canal. he also terminated the wheat deal with Russia, which would have established trade with Russia and lessened cold war tensions. In doing so it marked the beginning of all the hardships that took place with the American Farmers and loss of jobs.

Carter has arguably been a deteriment to freedom, democracy and the American Ideal as he was during his tenure as President.


Oh, thats despite being a good man!

Actually - had we listened to Carter back then we would not be in the mess we are now. Imagine what could have been done had we tried to get off of oil back then? Imagine what would be different if we had stopped funding tyrants and dictators back then?

And Panama Canal? Really? What part of honoring our treaties do people not understand?

[CoLibertarian]

As President, Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy) and the Department of Education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education). He established a national energy policy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States) that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Camp_David_Accords), the Panama Canal Treaties (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Panama_Canal_Treaties), the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks) (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone) to Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

:rollseyes:

http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm

August 15, 1971. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls.

Care to play more?

[MMC]

Actually - had we listened to Carter back then we would not be in the mess we are now. Imagine what could have been done had we tried to get off of oil back then? Imagine what would be different if we had stopped funding tyrants and dictators back then?

And Panama Canal? Really? What part of honoring our treaties do people not understand?


What part of 30,000 Americans dieing fighting a petty dictator don't you understand and Uhm Who......Built the Panama Canal? Plus don't come with that crap about the French who started the project and abandoned it without ever making any type of headway with it. What part about a politican employed by the Panamanians to negotiate with the Americans on good faith with their new found Freedom from Colombia.....did you not understand.

Then come back with the individual was not a citizen of Panama. Another of Carters major mistakes. Costing not only American blood, but money as well.

[CoLibertarian]

What part of 30,000 Americans dieing fighting a petty dictator don't you understand and Uhm Who......Built the Panama Canal? Plus don't come with that crap about the French who started the project and abandoned it without ever making any type of headway with it. What part about a politican employed by the Panamanians to negotiate with the Americans on good faith with their new found Freedom from Colombia.....did you not understand.

Then come back with the individual was not a citizen of Panama. Another of Carters major mistakes. Costing not only American blood, but money as well.

Shall we go over the history of the Panama Canal again and the shitty things the US did to get it and keep it? Shall we go over how the concerns of those who opposed the treaty are really unfounded? Shall we go over how the Canal is really not a major strategic issue any more? Shall we go over that the supposed shipping problems that might happen with Panama control of the canal never materialized? Shall we go over how the Panamanian control of the canal has actually been better than when U.S. controlled it?

What are your objections to the outcome of the treaty again? Or are you objections just the fact that the treaty exists?

[CoLibertarian]

What part of 30,000 Americans dieing fighting a petty dictator don't you understand and Uhm Who......Built the Panama Canal? Plus don't come with that crap about the French who started the project and abandoned it without ever making any type of headway with it. What part about a politican employed by the Panamanians to negotiate with the Americans on good faith with their new found Freedom from Colombia.....did you not understand.

Then come back with the individual was not a citizen of Panama. Another of Carters major mistakes. Costing not only American blood, but money as well.

BTW where do you come up with this figure of 30000 American lives lost?

[MMC]

BTW where do you come up with this figure of 30000 American lives lost?

Sorry about that.....I didnt mean 30,000 thousand dieing. Thats 30,000 that fought so that the Panamaians could be free. I think it was a total of 30,000 that died altogether with all nations that had Control of the Canal. I do think the French had had the bulk of those deaths. In either case Americans lost lives.

Which did not include the 5600 that died from disease in construction of the Canal, nor the 75,000 that built it. Our money, our labor, our blood and swet. Not to mention if it wasn't for T. Roosevelt Panama wouldn't even exist.

[CoLibertarian]

Sorry about that.....I didnt mean 30,000 thousand dieing. Thats 30,000 that fought so that the Panamaians could be free. I think it was a total of 30,000 that died altogether with all nations that had Control of the Canal. I do think the French had had the bulk of those deaths. In either case Americans lost lives.

Which did not include the 5600 that died from disease in construction of the Canal, nor the 75,000 that built it. Our money, our labor, our blood and swet. Not to mention if it wasn't for T. Roosevelt Panama wouldn't even exist.

No worries.

I do disagree with the statement "Panamanians could be free" though. Let's call a spade a spade. The revolution of Panama from Columbia had nothing to do with setting people free and had everything to do with the fact that the U.S. did not want to pay the price that Columbia wanted for the canal.

And like I said, the canal is still there and operating better than when we had it.

[MMC]

Shall we go over the history of the Panama Canal again and the shitty things the US did to get it and keep it? Shall we go over how the concerns of those who opposed the treaty are really unfounded? Shall we go over how the Canal is really not a major strategic issue any more? Shall we go over that the supposed shipping problems that might happen with Panama control of the canal never materialized? Shall we go over how the Panamanian control of the canal has actually been better than when U.S. controlled it?

What are your objections to the outcome of the treaty again? Or are you objections just the fact that the treaty exists?


Sure why not.....would this be after we poured a 128 million into the swamps of Panama or after Panama made the Frenchman Varilla Ambasador to the US?

Roosevelt acted quickly (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/panama/). In 1902, the United States reached an agreement to buy rights to the French canal property and equipment for a sum not to exceed $40 million. The U.S. then began negotiating a Panama treaty with Colombia. The U.S Department of War would direct excavation. Many, both in the press and in the public, sensed a scandal, or, worse yet, good money thrown after bad.

The U.S quickly assumed parental interest. Americans had written the Panamanian Constitution in advance; the wife of pro-canal lobbyist Phillipe Bunau-Varilla had sewn the country's first flag. A payment of $10 million secured a canal zone and rights to build. Bunau-Varilla, installed as Panamanian minister to the U.S., signed a treaty favorable to American interests. The $40 million given to J.P Morgan for distribution to French stockholders disappeared amid rumors of larcenous speculation.

1904, the Americans' first year in Panama, mirrored the French disaster. The chief engineer, John Findlay Wallace (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/panama-engineers/), neglected to organize the effort or to develop an action plan. The food was putrid, the living conditions abysmal. Political red tape put a stranglehold on appropriations. Disease struck, and three out of four Americans booked passage home. Engineer Wallace soon followed. The Americans had poured $128 million into the swamps of Panama, to damned little effect.....snip~

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tr-panama/

Btw, did the Amount we paid surpass the 40 mil??? :wink:

[Peter1469]

No worries.

I do disagree with the statement "Panamanians could be free" though. Let's call a spade a spade. The revolution of Panama from Columbia had nothing to do with setting people free and had everything to do with the fact that the U.S. did not want to pay the price that Columbia wanted for the canal.

And like I said, the canal is still there and operating better than when we had it.

We agree there Az. At least the US has a national security interest in seeing the canal built.

[CoLibertarian]

Sure why not.....would this be after we poured a 128 million into the swamps of Panama or after Panama made the Frenchman Varilla Ambasador to the US?

Roosevelt acted quickly (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/panama/). In 1902, the United States reached an agreement to buy rights to the French canal property and equipment for a sum not to exceed $40 million. The U.S. then began negotiating a Panama treaty with Colombia. The U.S Department of War would direct excavation. Many, both in the press and in the public, sensed a scandal, or, worse yet, good money thrown after bad.

The U.S quickly assumed parental interest. Americans had written the Panamanian Constitution in advance; the wife of pro-canal lobbyist Phillipe Bunau-Varilla had sewn the country's first flag. A payment of $10 million secured a canal zone and rights to build. Bunau-Varilla, installed as Panamanian minister to the U.S., signed a treaty favorable to American interests. The $40 million given to J.P Morgan for distribution to French stockholders disappeared amid rumors of larcenous speculation.

1904, the Americans' first year in Panama, mirrored the French disaster. The chief engineer, John Findlay Wallace (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/panama-engineers/), neglected to organize the effort or to develop an action plan. The food was putrid, the living conditions abysmal. Political red tape put a stranglehold on appropriations. Disease struck, and three out of four Americans booked passage home. Engineer Wallace soon followed. The Americans had poured $128 million into the swamps of Panama, to damned little effect.....snip~

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tr-panama/

Btw, did the Amount we paid surpass the 40 mil??? :wink:

There is no doubt the Columbians were stupid not to accept the first offer. That does not change the fact that what we did there was kind of shadey. Regardless, the treaty in question worked fine. Panama is happy, we are no longer there (which we should do with numerous places such as Europe and Korea), and the canal is running better than ever.

[MMC]

What we did there? Perhaps you should read up on what Varilla did. We also paid the Colombians 50 Dollars for laying down their weapons. Which the Majority of them did. Varilla was made US Ambassador by the Panamainian President.

Again did we pay more than 40 Mil? As far as being protected better. Not even close.

[CoLibertarian]

What we did there? Perhaps you should read up on what Varilla did. We also paid the Colombians 50 Dollars for laying down their weapons. Which the Majority of them did. Varilla was made US Ambassador by the Panamainian President.

Again did we pay more than 40 Mil? As far as being protected better. Not even close.

MMC,

you've got to keep in mind - I am an isolationist at heart. I say basically screw the world, let's worry about us at home. So I do believe we are better off giving the canal back to Panama. Sure there is a lengthy shitty history of the region (of which I am not going to take sides). All said and done, I think Carter's treaty has been a success, although probably not the way he envisioned.

[MMC]

Thanks C-Lib.....I am not against the idea of playing policeman of the World. Yet with this issue. Carter costed us jobs and money. I would rather have us maintain a Military presence in our own backyard, rather than in Europe and the M.E.

Which IMO we should have been forging those alliances and partnerships first. While Covering the Western Hemisphere. Know what I mean?

Even if Obama would have made some sort of impact, while not involving us into other Countries Affairs. We would have not spent as much money. Althought there is still talk of creating a Canal in Nicarauga, which was dumped once we had the Panama Canal. Moreover it is a Security Interest for the Western Hemispshere. There are none in the West that can compare with us Militarily, and as I said earlier. Jobs and money. Which is what we should have always been about. This was a loss of major revenue.