Obama's deficit Reduction PLAN

[jpyaks3]

From the WSJ-

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda

Snip........

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Continues................http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

He says its gimicky to use a 12 year instead of a 10 year window but doesn't mention the fact that in Ryans plan unemployment magically falls to ridiculously low levels? The WSJ opinion pages have just gone to garbage since the Murdoch acquisition it really is a shame.

[mardi gras skin]

As a person who was once in a lot of debt I know you can only cut so much what you need to is increase revenue, and this is something Republicans either will not honestly admit or not smart of enough to realize maybe they have always been well to do.

How much of our country's productivity do you think should go to the operations of the government? Do you have a percent of our GDP in mind as you advocate for higher taxation?

[DRSmith]

How much of our country's productivity do you think should go to the operations of the government? Do you have a percent of our GDP in mind as you advocate for higher taxation?

Depends on how large you want to be, keeping an empire running like the US with bases all over the world and embassies and staff means a lot of outlay, you can always lower taxes once you have paid off your debt

[mardi gras skin]

Depends on how large you want to be, keeping an empire running like the US with bases all over the world and embassies and staff means a lot of outlay, you can always lower taxes once you have paid off your debt

Ok, so you think there is a way for us to keep taxes low. Setting aside the long term debt and just focusing on the annual deficit, you think that cutting military spending would enable us to drastically cut government spending.

But how much is left? After the military is cut, how much of the GDP do you think the government should tax and spend?

[Bliz]

From the WSJ-

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda

Snip..........

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

Snip........

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Continues................http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It's kinda sad what's become of the WSJ. For such a well-respected paper to sink to the depths it has in its opinion pages (and it's been consistent for a few years now) really shows you, beyond any doubt or question, the power and control exerted by Murdoch over his news organizations. It's a little shocking.

If you want to be serious, SERIOUS, about deficit reduction, you have to admit that doing it requires reduced discretionary spending, some measure of reform of medicare medicaid and SS, decreased defense spending, AND modest tax increases. IF we care about reducing the deficit, taxes don't need to be at their lowest level in 50 years.

But politicians DON'T really care about the deficit, you, me, or anything other than their power and their bank account. They care about getting elected and staying elected, and will tell us whatever the hell they think we want to hear to make it happen.

[The Sisko]

I have no idea why you "get the feeling" that I feel that way. Especially since I siad something extremely different in the post you quoted.

I guess you chose to overlook the fact that I said I would support KEEPING social programs while a slow draw down plan of cuts was enacted. Maybe you could try reading a post rather than focussing on the author of a quote in my sig next time. It will make you appear like you actually tried to engage in friendly debate on a tough topic rather than making broad assumptions that are proven incorrect with my very words.

Actually it was an assessment of your commands, not your sig...

You begin with an errant pemise that "Paying off 14 trillion in 8 years will not happen". You seem to feel that its impossible when it really is not. Now if you are saying that there isnt the political will to do it, then I'd agree. But it can and should happen and there should be no tax increases until all non-essential spending is halted in its tracks, all redundant and duplicative programs are removed 100% and ALL programs and projects are reviewed for waste, starting with all overseas bases and operations, medicare/medicaid, and SSI. Then move onto removing corporate, foreign, and Sate welfare.

I'm perfectly comfortable that if we need to fund entitlements for a few more years with a plan to phase out reasonable so as to not leave anyone in a sudden lurch, then to do so after all so called "wars" are ended and the vast majority of bases either closed or funded by the nations that want our presence there as security.

Once ALL of the above is addressed, then lets talk about raising taxes

My opinion was also based on your "error" of confusing the debt and deficit numbers earlier in the thread. Maybe lost your reading comprehension all of a sudden? Regardless, your discussion of the ways to get to the higher $14T figure was illuminating. It showed a stunning disrespect for what govt. does.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm kinda surprised that so many people want to close so many overseas bases. I understand that it doesn't seem like we need them. But the reason that we don't need them is because they are there. Presence is a large deterance.

[Hubbs]

I'm kinda surprised that so many people want to close so many overseas bases. I understand that it doesn't seem like we need them. But the reason that we don't need them is because they are there. Presence is a large deterance.

Yes, without our tens of thousands of troops in Germany, the Germans would quickly be overrun by those damn Commies.

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually it was an assessment of your commands, not your sig...

.

Yes, I "disrespect" a lot of what the Federal Govt does these days, especially when we all can see the awful results all around us. Strange that you havent noticed.

Your post couldnt possibly have been ran assessment of my comments because I said something very different (if you would actually read it) than you accused me of believing. Oh, I get that you adore hyperbole and putting words in my mouth that werent said. But it paints you as foolish.

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 09:43 AM ----------

I'm kinda surprised that so many people want to close so many overseas bases. I understand that it doesn't seem like we need them. But the reason that we don't need them is because they are there. Presence is a large deterance.

How much of a deterrent is a bankrupt nation that cant pay for that intimidating presence? Any so-called proponent of small government, spending reductions and liberty cannot also support wasteful bases when we are in this awful economic condition.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yes, without our tens of thousands of troops in Germany, the Germans would quickly be overrun by those damn Commies.

Not so much that but it is designed to keep the area in check. Things would run a lot more rampant if they knew it would take us a week to get there to do something about it.

How much of a deterrent is a bankrupt nation that cant pay for that intimidating presence? Any so-called proponent of small government, spending reductions and liberty cannot also support wasteful bases when we are in this awful economic condition.

If we are going "bankrupt" it doesn't matter where our troops are. But it costs less to swat China from Germany then to move all those troops and supplies back to the USA just to move them back again a year later.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not so much that but it is designed to keep the area in check. Things would run a lot more rampant if they knew it would take us a week to get there to do something about it.

If we are going "bankrupt" it doesn't matter where our troops are. But it costs less to swat China from Germany then to move all those troops and supplies back to the USA just to move them back again a year later.

It absolutely does matter where our troops are in terms of cost. You are dreaming if you think its cheaper to maintain the bases than to keep our troops at home defending OUR country, helping in OUR national disasters and guarding OUR borders.

Its a silly assertion that a strong defensive posture at home is less effective than a diluted one abroad. If those nations need our help and want us in a base there, then they should pay us for the privilege

[TheGoodBits]

I would definitely like to see some of the unnecessary overseas bases closed down. Some of the larger, more important ones act of staging areas for our military in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and we should keep those open for strategic reasons. Maybe defund them a bit though, and keep fewer troops there on a full time basis.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I would definitely like to see some of the unnecessary overseas bases closed down. Some of the larger, more important ones act of staging areas for our military in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and we should keep those open for strategic reasons. Maybe defund them a bit though, and keep fewer troops there on a full time basis.

That is sorta what I'm saying though I would be careful with how much you defund them. I'm not saying that EVERY overseas base is needed. But overseas bases in general are needed.

[SnyderShrugged]

I would definitely like to see some of the unnecessary overseas bases closed down. Some of the larger, more important ones act of staging areas for our military in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and we should keep those open for strategic reasons. Maybe defund them a bit though, and keep fewer troops there on a full time basis.

That would work for me too. I just think there are a ton that arent needed, but I imagine a few are so strategic that it works. (My personal view is to bring them all home, but I realize that its nearly impossible and probably doesnt make sense overall)

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 10:50 AM ----------

That is sorta what I'm saying though I would be careful with how much you defund them. I'm not saying that EVERY overseas base is needed. But overseas bases in general are needed.

We found our middle ground!

Politicians should do so well!

[Wrong Direction]

He says its gimicky to use a 12 year instead of a 10 year window but doesn't mention the fact that in Ryans plan unemployment magically falls to ridiculously low levels? The WSJ opinion pages have just gone to garbage since the Murdoch acquisition it really is a shame.

Just FYI:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264675/paul-ryan-vs-mythmakers-ramesh-ponnuru?page=1

The plan’s projections for debt reduction do not assume that any extra revenue comes in from higher economic growth. The CBO applies the same economic assumptions to Ryan’s plan that it applies when making projections about Obama’s budget and current law.

[88Comrade2000]

I think everyone knows that unless either side has complete control of government; neither of their plans has a chance in happening.

It's a starting point that maybe leads to a compromise in early 2013??

[Thiebear]

TheGreatBuzz:

the 20,000 troops in South korea couldn't stop the north for 8 minutes before they traveled the 30 miles to Seoul.

Nobody with any training thinks differently. An embassy of 1000 would be no different of a deterrent.

[Stillers6SB]

That would work for me too. I just think there are a ton that arent needed, but I imagine a few are so strategic that it works. (My personal view is to bring them all home, but I realize that its nearly impossible and probably doesnt make sense overall)

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 10:50 AM ----------

We found our middle ground!

Politicians should do so well!

I agree with much of your thinking on the military.

We currently spend roughly $800 Billion for defense. What level should it be at? $300 Billion? $500 Billion?

[SnyderShrugged]

I agree with much of your thinking on the military.

We currently spend roughly $800 Billion for defense. What level should it be at? $300 Billion? $500 Billion?

It would be hard to get to a specific figure but I'd think at least a few hundred billion could come off with some simple moves

[nonniey]

TheGreatBuzz:

the 20,000 troops in South korea couldn't stop the north for 8 minutes before they traveled the 30 miles to Seoul.

Nobody with any training thinks differently. An embassy of 1000 would be no different of a deterrent.

The ROK Army would have little to no problem stopping them and then conquering the North in retaliation for all the damage caused by nK artillery.

As for the Presidents speech it is becoming readily apparent he is not serious about deficit reduction or debt control. It is almost like he wants to lose next year.

[IHOPSkins]

.......You cut Medicare for anyone over 60k a year income..........

I would INCREASE the Medicare budget

And use it to investigate Fraud

Its Huge in this system and I believe if we spent a little....we would get a HUGE return on the investment

This should have been done BEFORE the Obama/Pelosi healthcare debacle (now sitting in the range of at 35% approval)

Fraud is Huge...and we can realize gain without increased taxes or cutting spending by making the system MORE EFFECIANT

I am here until friday...then Vegas

[nonniey]

How about a non-conservative criticism of the President's speech for those of you that can't stomach the WSJ (Even thought they alos hit the nail head on).

From the Atlantic

"bama had a difficult assignment in this speech, partly because of the exaggerated hopes for it (see previous post). Even allowing for that, it was weak both politically and substantively. My instant unguarded reaction, in fact, was to find it not just weak but pitiful. I honestly wondered why he bothered.

There was no sign of anything worth calling a plan to curb borrowing faster than in the budget. He offered no more than a list of headings under which $4 trillion of deficit reduction (including the $2 trillion already in his budget) might be found--domestic non-security spending, defense, health costs, and tax reform. Fine, sure. But what he said was devoid of detail. He spent more of his time stressing what he would not agree to than describing clear proposals of his own.

His rebuttal of the Ryan plan was all very well--I agree it's no good--but the administration still lacks a rival plan. That, surely, is what this speech had to provide, or at least point to, if it was going to be worth giving in the first place. His criticisms of Ryan and the Republicans need no restating. And did the country need another defense of public investment in clean energy and the American social contract? It wanted to be told how fiscal policy is going to be mended: if not by the Ryan plan, with its many grave defects, then how?

Bowles-Simpson is the right basic answer. Obama several times said he was drawing on their recommendations, but he did so only partially and incoherently. He has not embraced their overall approach, not by a long shot. Nothing on Social Security. Little of what they propose on Medicare. And on tax reform I think he is actually making it harder for himself to move, eventually, in their direction.

Far from seeking compromise on tax policy, the whole speech was yet again organised around an attack on the evil Bush tax cuts, and a promise to reverse them in part. We would not be in this mess, he said, but for the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I wondered, as he said that, is he therefore going to call for the drug benefit to be halted and all the Bush tax cuts to be reversed? Stupid question. Of course not. Just the tax cuts for the rich, leaving the much larger part of the Bush tax policy in place. Even now, he is deploring the Bush tax cuts as the cause of all the country's problems while actually proposing to leave most of them alone.

Bowles-Simpson proposes a base-broadening assault on tax expenditures and a lowering of marginal rates, for an overall increase in revenue. Obama picked up the tax-expenditure idea, mentioning Bowles-Simpson as he did so, but combined it with reaffirmed hostility to lower tax rates for the rich. (Again with the millionaires and billionaires.) He is still proposing an increase, not a decrease, in marginal rates on high incomes combined with restricted tax expenditures for those at the top of the income distribution--that is to say, two rounds of increases in high-income tax rates. The rich can pay for it all. That is Obama's tax policy. The whole point and key virtue of the Bowles-Simpson approach to taxes is that it held out the prospect of a deal between Democrats and Republicans: lower marginal rates in return for higher revenues. Obama appears to rule this out on principle.

The speech was more notable for its militant--though ineffectual--hostility to Republican proposals than for any fresh thinking of its own. It was a waste of breath."

Click link for article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obamas-speech-was-a-waste-of-breath/237285/

[The Sisko]

Yes, I "disrespect" a lot of what the Federal Govt does these days, especially when we all can see the awful results all around us. Strange that you havent noticed.

Your post couldnt possibly have been ran assessment of my comments because I said something very different (if you would actually read it) than you accused me of believing. Oh, I get that you adore hyperbole and putting words in my mouth that werent said. But it paints you as foolish.

I'd beg to differ. What you said was...

I'd even support maintaining domestic programsfor a while as long as a phase down slowly plan is in place to ease the transition for those who have become dependent on them.

So that certainly seemed to be a statement on your part that you'd like to see domestic programs phased out. Please feel free to correct me if I've somehow made up the above quote though.

There’s a big difference between respect and agreement. There’s plenty that the govt. does that I don’t agree with, or that it does in a way that I don’t agree with. Even so, overall I respect its role in helping build/maintain many of the services that we take for granted.

However given your comments I think it’s clear that your definition of “small govt.” is radically different that most, whether liberal or conservative. I realize it’s OT but for the sake of it, which departments/agencies would you cut altogether, which would you cut minimally, and which would you leave alone?

[SnyderShrugged]

I'd beg to differ. What you said was...

So that certainly seemed to be a statement on your part that you'd like to see domestic programs phased out. Please feel free to correct me if I've somehow made up the above quote though.

There’s a big difference between respect and agreement. There’s plenty that the govt. does that I don’t agree with, or that it does in a way that I don’t agree with. Even so, overall I respect its role in helping build/maintain many of the services that we take for granted.

However given your comments I think it’s clear that your definition of “small govt.” is radically different that most, whether liberal or conservative. I realize it’s OT but for the sake of it, which departments/agencies would you cut altogether, which would you cut minimally, and which would you leave alone?

You can "Beg to differ" all you like, but its foolish since I clearly posted "slowly draw down" and never said 100% cut.

Thats your problem with assuming and making up things not mine. I'm very comfortable that my very words show that you are incorrect (and you have posted them twice now and still have trouble reading them I guess)

First and foremost, I'd pass an ammendment that does not allow any more borrowing. Period. Until things are back under control.

I'm not sure I could comfortably say what levels of any specific department that should be cut. I dont have enough detail. But there was a report recently (I'll try to find the link) that outlined hundreds of departments, agencies and programs that are duplicative and redundant. I'd start there and on dramatically reducing our foreign military presence around the world.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/255722-gao-report-finds-redundancy-in-federal-programs

That will free up at least a little money to be applied domestically to take care of our own who cannot provide for themselves (as opposed to will not btw). I would mandate that the truly needy have that help locked in, while the lesser needy slowly phase out into private programs and other methods over time. I definitely dont desire a sudden "shock" to anyone, even those that I would not define as "needy" at this time.

Then I would take each program and look back to its inception, understand the spirit and goals of it, review the results as compared to those goals, and if they didnt meet it or they experienced scope creep, I would end that program or mandate that it go back to its original form with modifcations that hopefully would get it back on its intended track.

Then I would review all programs that had either a State or private counterpart that performed the same function and would assess each of their results based on the original intended goals. The Federal ones that exceeded performance over the others could stay, the ones that dont..go.

Just these moves would save trillions and its really not radical at all, its simple common sense removal of waste, duplication and redundancy with a focus domestically rather than foreign.

[Hubbs]

Not so much that but it is designed to keep the area in check. Things would run a lot more rampant if they knew it would take us a week to get there to do something about it.

I'd really love to hear how you think things in the EU would "run a lot more rampant," especially if it would take us a whole week to intervene.

If we are going "bankrupt" it doesn't matter where our troops are. But it costs less to swat China from Germany then to move all those troops and supplies back to the USA just to move them back again a year later.

So, just to be clear:

1) It's our troops in Germany that would be critical in a fight against China.

2) We should base our military decisions on hypothetical, unforeseeable conflicts that could erupt within a year of any of said decisions.