Obama's Effort to Reduce the Deficit Should Make Us All Happy.

[drbob]

         A lot of people have been registering strong protests against the economic stimulus bill that was just passed by Congress.  They are saying, among many other things, that this legislation adds way too much to our already bloated national deficit.  Some of these criticisms may be well taken and some surely are not.  However, there is some good news for those who want to see the deficit reduced.

            The Obama administration says it will submit a budget shortly that will cut our government's deficit by about 50 percent over the next four years.  President Obama will give a broad outline of this budget in a speech this week and the budget itself will be submitted to Congress next month.

            The Obama Administration says the deficit reduction will result from a tax increase on some businesses and on the wealthy, along with a dramatic reduction in the spending on the war in Iraq.  Obama says he will also save billions by streamlining our health-care delivery system.  Now, we will have to wait a while in order to get the precise details of this budget, but if this early report is correct, Obama is headed in the right direction.

            No doubt Obama will have to fight both Democrats and Republicans in order to get his budget through congress.  Republicans will fight the tax increases.  However, if we are going to get rid of the deficit, tax increases are necessary, particularly on the wealthy.  One of the major failings of the last administration and the Republican controlled congress for most of the last 20 years, has been the effort to keep taxes low on the richest individuals and the most profitable businesses.  In the campaign, Obama promised to end that practice and it looks like he will try to keep that promise.

            Democrats will also fight some provision of Obama's budget.  They will want to increase spending on some entitlement programs.  Some of these increases may be essential and should be supported (such as the recently passed SCHIP program), but Obama will have to hold the line against the excesses of his own party, at least until we begin to get the deficit under control.

            A reduction of the spending on Iraq is long overdue.  We are spending about $10 billion a month on a war that we should never have started.  Nevertheless, it was started.  So now, we now must figure a way to get out of it as soon it is possible.  It is past time that we gave the country back to Iraq.  Obama says we'll be out in about 16 months.  I wish it was sooner, but we must leave the details to the generals.  The point here is that the saving of at least a good portion of the $10 billion will go a long way toward helping our deficit reduction effort.

            Obama came into office promising to change the way our government operated.  So, far he has made an effort to live up to his promises.  I hope sensible Democrats and Republicans can support this budget proposal.  If that happens, we may actually see the changes in government for which most Americans voted, last November. 

[Anne]

I hope he can do that, it is way overdue. How much will the additional troops being sent to Afghanistan cost? I would guess it will be less than what is being spent in Iraq, but how it needs to figure into the picture.

[drbob]

Hello Anne.... Thanks for your comment.

Well, I don't know how much the build up in Afghanistan will cost.  It is Afghanistan that might be a real problem of Obama's effort, we'll have to see.  Clearly, however, Afghanistan will cost less that Iraq. 

[followsthewolf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ----

no invader in history has ever won a war in Afghanistan.

What makes us so certain we will succeed?

[Ghost of Jaco]

Let's parse some of this, shall we?

         A lot of people have been registering strong protests against the economic stimulus bill that was just passed by Congress.  They are saying, among many other things, that this legislation adds way too much to our already bloated national deficit.  Some of these criticisms may be well taken and some surely are not.  However, there is some good news for those who want to see the deficit reduced.

            The Obama administration says it will submit a budget shortly that will cut our government's deficit by about 50 percent over the next four years.  President Obama will give a broad outline of this budget in a speech this week and the budget itself will be submitted to Congress next month.

So, the same administration that this week increased our deficit by a trillion dollars, is now going to reduce the entire deficit by 50%? How will this miracle happen? Read on....

            The Obama Administration says the deficit reduction will result from a tax increase on some businesses and on the wealthy, along with a dramatic reduction in the spending on the war in Iraq.  Obama says he will also save billions by streamlining our health-care delivery system.  Now, we will have to wait a while in order to get the precise details of this budget, but if this early report is correct, Obama is headed in the right direction.

I see....we are going to increase taxes on business until they start hiring people. Man, that is brilliant!
And we are going to REDUCE spending by billions...now wait a minute! I thought that taking a trillion dollars from the American people to spend was a GOOD thing? Hmmm....
Well, that "taxing the wealthy" thing...I can't wait! Finally, the factories and companies that the poor people own can start hiring again! Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!

            No doubt Obama will have to fight both Democrats and Republicans in order to get his budget through congress.  Republicans will fight the tax increases.  However, if we are going to get rid of the deficit, tax increases are necessary, particularly on the wealthy.  One of the major failings of the last administration and the Republican controlled congress for most of the last 20 years, has been the effort to keep taxes low on the richest individuals and the most profitable businesses.  In the campaign, Obama promised to end that practice and it looks like he will try to keep that promise.

Tax ourselves to prosperity? Take the money away from the American people so that they will spend more? Well, maybe THIS time it will work!

            Democrats will also fight some provision of Obama's budget.  They will want to increase spending on some entitlement programs.  Some of these increases may be essential and should be supported (such as the recently passed SCHIP program), but Obama will have to hold the line against the excesses of his own party, at least until we begin to get the deficit under control.

Democrats will fight their porkulent vote-buying schemes being axed, that is a given. President Obama had a grand opportunity to "hold the line" against his party's excesses last week and he didn't do it. Why should we trust that he will do it now?
The SCHIP program is NOT "essential", btw.

            A reduction of the spending on Iraq is long overdue.  We are spending about $10 billion a month on a war that we should never have started.  Nevertheless, it was started.  So now, we now must figure a way to get out of it as soon it is possible.  It is past time that we gave the country back to Iraq.  Obama says we'll be out in about 16 months.  I wish it was sooner, but we must leave the details to the generals.  The point here is that the saving of at least a good portion of the $10 billion will go a long way toward helping our deficit reduction effort.

Once again, you cannot argue that Gov't spending is the hero that will save us and then also argue that stopping 10 billion dollars a month of spending is a great idea. The President needs to pick a point of view and stick to it. He is waffling. But it sure sounds good to uncritical ears, doesn't it?

            Obama came into office promising to change the way our government operated.  So, far he has made an effort to live up to his promises.  I hope sensible Democrats and Republicans can support this budget proposal.  If that happens, we may actually see the changes in government for which most Americans voted, last November. 

Nationalization of banks and other industries? Oh, we are indeed getting a belly-full of "hope and change".
Btw, "nationalization" is just newspeak for "socialism".

[Exterminator]

You're right, GoJ, Obama should quit listening to all of his over-educated, experienced economic advisors and take advice from a guy who couldn't figure out how to turn a profit selling a quarter's worth of liquor for five bucks.   

[Ghost of Jaco]

You're right, GoJ, Obama should quit listening to all of his over-educated, experienced economic advisors and take advice from a guy who couldn't figure out how to turn a profit selling a quarter's worth of liquor for five bucks.  

Funny! But at least I HAVE experience being in business, Obama does not.
In any event, if you have issues with my analysis, please direct your comments in that direction. This thread is not about me nor my former business dealings.

[Exterminator]

Funny! But at least I HAVE experience being in business, Obama does not.

That's like saying, "I tried to drive a car once but crashed it so I have driving experience." 

In any event, if you have issues with my analysis, please direct your comments in that direction. This thread is not about me nor my former business dealings.

I would submit that someone's perspective is absolutely relative to subject at hand especially when his/her "analysis" is nothing more than parroting of the falsehoods they've been spoon fed by believers in supply-side economics (read: rich people who want you to believe that giving them your money benefits you).

[Ghost of Jaco]

I repeat:
"Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!"

The poor do not create jobs in this country. The rich create jobs that the poor may apply for in order to rise up from their poverty.
This is a fact so obvious that even you should be able to grasp it.

And what about the rest? Do you believe that increased spending is the answer to our current economic woes?
Do you believe that the Gov't knows how to spend your money better than you do to provide for your needs and wants?
Please explain how raising taxes on businesses will create jobs?

[followsthewolf]

I personally know of several "welfare moms" who are now making a very good living, paying taxes, and contributing to the growth of the economy where I live.

All they needed was a safety net at one point in their lives.

So, yes, I do know of thirteen people who now owe their livings to the company started by one of those "welfare moms" you so blithely disregard in your post.

Blatant stereotyping and ignorance.

[Exterminator]

"Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!"

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly?  What you refuse to accept is that without people willing and able to pay for goods and services offered, it really doesn't matter how much tax a corporation pays because they won't be making any money anyway.  GM is not being stymied by its tax burden; it's being stymied because they aren't selling cars.

The poor do not create jobs in this country. The rich create jobs that the poor may apply for in order to rise up from their poverty.
This is a fact so obvious that even you should be able to grasp it.

The rich do not create jobs; necessity creates jobs.  It is funny, though, to watch people who are not and never will be anywhere near even upper middle class bang their fists while defending the people who profit sometimes obscenely from their labor...truly hysterical.

And what about the rest? Do you believe that increased spending is the answer to our current economic woes?

Money has to enter the economy from somewhere if it is to begin moving again.

[Ghost of Jaco]

I personally know of several "welfare moms" who are now making a very good living, paying taxes, and contributing to the growth of the economy where I live.

All they needed was a safety net at one point in their lives.

So, yes, I do know of thirteen people who now owe their livings to the company started by one of those "welfare moms" you so blithely disregard in your post.

Blatant stereotyping and ignorance.

I didn't blithely disregards them at all, ftw. You have missed my point.
Your example of a welfare mom who has pulled herself up and out of welfare and now has a company that employs others is an example of how the "safety net" system should work. I congratulate her! It is my sincere hope that every welfare recipient does the same.

However, she is no longer a "welfare" mom; thus, you do not know a welfare mom who owns a company that employs others at high-paying jobs with awesome benefits. What you know is a president/CEO/owner of a company who should be giving speeches to current welfare moms on how to get out of the welfare trap!

[Ghost of Jaco]

Which has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly?  What you refuse to accept is that without people willing and able to pay for goods and services offered, it really doesn't matter how much tax a corporation pays because they won't be making any money anyway.  GM is not being stymied by its tax burden; it's being stymied because they aren't selling cars.

Ok, then, why can't GM sell cars?

The rich do not create jobs; necessity creates jobs. 

The rich own the companies that, out of a desire to profit further, employ the labor of others. And market forces (should) dictate the value of such labor. The poor do NOT own companies, they work for companies.  The poor are NOT a massive engine of job creation. The wealthy class is, however, when it is of value to them. You really should read the article about "tax cuts for the rich" that Henry posted on the other thread.

It is funny, though, to watch people who are not and never will be anywhere near even upper middle class bang their fists while defending the people who profit sometimes obscenely from their labor...truly hysterical.

Not quite sure what you were reaching for here, but maybe these lower income people that you disparage know that if the companies they work for don't profit then they could very well lose their jobs. That would be reason enough to defend them, don't you think?

Money has to enter the economy from somewhere if it is to begin moving again.

Agreed. I suggest allowing people to keep more of their money so they can direct their spending where it will benefit them most is a better plan than taxing it away from them and into the hands of the very entity (Gov't) that got us in this mess to begin with. Apparently you disagree.
Oh well, so you disagree. Maybe you really aren't smart enough to spend your own money in your own best interest. Maybe you DO need someone to take it from you and spend it as they see fit.

[Henry Hawk]

  well said jacko!! 

[Exterminator]

Ok, then, why can't GM sell cars?

Because there are no buyers...sort of hints at a demand-side economy; huh?

The rich own the companies that, out of a desire to profit further, employ the labor of others. And market forces (should) dictate the value of such labor. The poor do NOT own companies, they work for companies.

Maybe in la-la land the rich own the companies but in the real world, most of the major employers aside from the government are publicly held and the ownership of their stock is spread out amongst the spectrum of socio-economic classes.

The poor are NOT a massive engine of job creation. The wealthy class is, however, when it is of value to them. You really should read the article about "tax cuts for the rich" that Henry posted on the other thread.

I did read the article and as I mentioned, it's too bad the shill that wrote it wasn't clairvoyant and couldn't have seen how ridiculous it would sound in the midst of an economic collapse.

Not quite sure what you were reaching for here, but maybe these lower income people that you disparage know that if the companies they work for don't profit then they could very well lose their jobs. That would be reason nough to defend them, don't you think?

It's more likely that they're gullible and can't separate the economic fiction from their sociological and religious ideologies.

Agreed. I suggest allowing people to keep more of their money so they can direct their spending where it will benefit them most is a better plan than taxing it away from them and into the hands of the very entity (Gov't) that got us in this mess to begin with. Apparently you disagree.

Letting people who are already employed keep more of their money does nothing to employ those who are not and accomplishes nothing in the way of increasing productivity.  Using that money to effect much needed infrastructure improvements puts people to work.