• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.

Obama's new budget projects that the deficit for the current year will surge to an all-time high of $1.65 trillion. That reflects a sizable tax-cut agreement reached with Republicans in December. For 2012, the administration sees the imbalance declining to $1.1 trillion, giving the country a record four straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.

Jacob Lew, Obama's budget director, said that the president's spending proposal was a balanced package of spending cuts and "shared sacrifice" that would bring the deficits under control. Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," Lew said that Obama's budget would "stand the test that we live within our means and we invest in the future."

Senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget, said that Obama would achieve two-thirds of his projected $1.1 trillion in deficit savings through spending cuts including a five-year freeze on many domestic programs.

The other one-third of the savings would come from tax increases, including limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers, a proposal Obama put forward last year only to have it rejected in Congress.

The Obama budget recommendation, which is certain to be changed by Congress, would spend $3.73 trillion in the 2012 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, a reduction of 2.4 percent from what Obama projects will be spent in the current budget year.

The Obama plan would fall far short of the $4 trillion in deficit cuts recommended in a December report by his blue-ribbon deficit commission. That panel said that real progress on the deficit cannot be made without tackling the government's big three entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and defense spending.

Obama concentrated his cuts in the one-tenth of the budget that covers most domestic agencies, projecting $400 billion in savings from a five-year freeze in this area. Some programs would not just see spending frozen at 2010 spending levels but would be targeted for sizable cuts.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the November elections and picked up seats in the Senate in part because of voter anger over the soaring deficits, called Obama's efforts too timid. They want spending frozen at 2008 levels before efforts to fight a deep recession boosted spending in the past two years.

They are scheduled to begin debating on Tuesday a proposal that would trim spending by $61 billion for the seven months left in the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. They also have vowed to push for tougher cuts in 2012 and future years.

"Americans don't want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "They want cuts, dramatic cuts."

The president's projected $1.65 trillion deficit for the current year would be the highest dollar amount ever, surpassing the $1.41 trillion deficit hit in 2009. It would also represent 10.8 percent of the total economy, the highest level since the deficit stood at 21.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1945, reflecting heavy borrowing to fight World War II.

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling lower below $607 billion, a figure that would still exceed the previous deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Administration officials project that the deficits will be trimmed to 3.2 percent of GDP by 2015 — one-third of the projected 2011 imbalance and a level they said was sustainable.

While cutting many programs, the new budget does propose spending increases in selected areas of education, biomedical research, energy efficiency, high-speed rail and other areas Obama judged to be important to the country's future competitiveness in a global economy.

In the energy area, the budget would support Obama's goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and doubling the nation's share of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

The budget proposes program terminations or spending reductions for more than 200 programs at an estimated savings of $33 billion in 2012. Programs targeted for large cuts included Community Development Block Grants, trimmed by $300 million, while a program that helps pay heating bills for low-income families would be cut in half for a savings of $2.5 billion while a program supporting environmental restoration of the Great Lakes would be reduced by one-fourth for $125 million in savings.

The biggest tax hike would come from a proposal to trim the deductions the wealthiest Americans can claim for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local tax payments. The administration proposed this tax hike last year but it was a nonstarter in Congress.

Obama's budget would also raise $46 billion over 10 years by eliminating various tax breaks to oil, gas and coal companies.

While Obama's budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle.

Administration officials said that the savings from limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers would be used to pay for keeping the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting more middle-class families over the next two years.

Another $62 billion in savings would be devoted to paying to prevent cuts in payments to doctors in the Medicare program over the next two years. Congress has for several years blocked the cuts from taking effect.

The budget will propose $1 billion in cuts in grants for large airports, almost $1 billion in reduced support to states for water treatment plants and other infrastructure programs and savings from consolidating public health programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and various U.S. Forest Service programs.

The administration will also propose saving $100 billion from Pell Grants and other higher education programs over a decade through belt-tightening with the savings used to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the budget's Monday release.

The surge in deficits reflect the deep 2007-2009 recession, the worst since the Great Depression, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of work and prompted massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and stabilize the banking system.

Republicans point to still-elevated unemployment levels and charge the stimulus programs were a failure. The administration contends the spending was needed to keep the country from falling into an even deeper slump.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110214/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_budget
 

maildude

Postal Paranoiac
And 1/4 of that will be the defense budget. Of course, the Administration will probably call for cuts in defense, with the Republicans resisting until they realize that the well is dry. Then everyone will complain that cutting defense puts our troops at risk, when we dug the hole in the first place sending most of them overseas.
 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz/ gridlock/ the only thing these idiots are gonna reduce is common sense/ keep pumping up equities Bernanke! Fuck head ! :mad:
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
i hope republican gets elected in 2012
 
I hope americans wake up by 2012 to the fact that both republicans and democrats are controlled by the same interests and present an illusion of choice, its like Coke and Pepsi, a duoppoly, a misleading business practice that has been used for years and will continue until a true awakening happens
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I hope americans wake up by 2012 to the fact that both republicans and democrats are controlled by the same interests and present an illusion of choice, its like Coke and Pepsi, a duoppoly, a misleading business practice that has been used for years and will continue until a true awakening happens

This!^^^ :thumbsup:

The fact is, the (current FY) $3.5 trillion budget is composed of $800 billion to Social Security, $700 billion to defense and about another $700 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. That's about 62% of the budget right there, and those items are sacred cows, which neither Democrats nor Republicans have EVER been brave enough to touch. There is also a ticking time bomb component that some people just can't seem to come to grips with: this year the interest on the debt will be around $200 billion. That number will soon approach $600 billion, as interest rates rise and the cost of refinancing existing (and future) debt causes debt servicing costs to soar. So with a $3.5 trillion budget, a $1.5 trillion deficit and (at least) $2.2 trillion in spending that few politicians will touch with a ten foot pole... what does the math tell us?

I spent my college years being schooled in supply side theory. And I continue to believe that it has its merits, IF PROPERLY APPLIED (which it never has been). But it is not a $ for $ cost/benefit. Part of the reason for this year's deficit is Obama and the Congress extending tax breaks... including some sweetheart breaks for those who LEAST needed them. That was a basic supply side move. And it will benefit the economy/GDP growth. But it will also deprive the government of that amount in (lost) revenues. I don't know if each dollar in tax breaks will bring about $.10 or $.50 or $.75 in growth. But IMO, not even a VERY liberal interpretation of the Laffer Curve would get you to $1 of growth for each $1 spent/not collected.

Most sane people realize that the only way to really attack the debt and deficit issues in this country is to cut spending AND increase taxes. Not one or the other... BOTH! I accept that Americans are increasingly falling behind the rest of the developed world in math and science. But you'd think we could still do simple math. But to borrow a (cute) phrase from Spexy Ashleigh: Le sigh. American voters only want to hear what they want to hear. And the last thing a politician can/should do is tell the sheeple the truth.
 
And 1/4 of that will be the defense budget. Of course, the Administration will probably call for cuts in defense, with the Republicans resisting until they realize that the well is dry. Then everyone will complain that cutting defense puts our troops at risk, when we dug the hole in the first place sending most of them overseas.

While there is certainly "fat" in the defense budget could be trimmed, it seems to be the red herring for some people...

You like the internet? DoD developed that.

You like plane travel? DoD's research into jets made it possible.

And so on... a lot of groundbreaking R&D and other items are in that part of the budget, so be careful not to say "cut defense and all our problems will be solved!!" Again, that's not to say that cuts shouldn't be made, but I think the attitude that if DoD went away we'd live in nirvana is a fallacy of the highest order. That money has MUCH more returns than MANY other government agencies.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I've heard many people say that the Dept. of Education should be eliminated. But I'm not aware of anyone who has said that the Dept. of Defense should go away. Who are these people and where can I find them?

What I do tend to hear is any call for defense cuts being met with hyperbolic claims that ANY cut in defense will mean the safety of the country will be put in peril.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
i hope republican gets elected in 2012
You would :facepalm:
While there is certainly "fat" in the defense budget could be trimmed, it seems to be the red herring for some people...

You like the internet? DoD developed that.

You like plane travel? DoD's research into jets made it possible.

And so on... a lot of groundbreaking R&D and other items are in that part of the budget, so be careful not to say "cut defense and all our problems will be solved!!" Again, that's not to say that cuts shouldn't be made, but I think the attitude that if DoD went away we'd live in nirvana is a fallacy of the highest order. That money has MUCH more returns than MANY other government agencies.
There's a lot of fat in american defense. Cutting the pay of generals, cutting out stryker, dropping M1, Flying only F16s regularily are all feasible starting options for a massive reduction.
I've heard many people say that the Dept. of Education should be eliminated. But I'm not aware of anyone who has said that the Dept. of Defense should go away. Who are these people and where can I find them?

What I do tend to hear is any call for defense cuts being met with hyperbolic claims that ANY cut in defense will mean the safety of the country will be put in peril.
That's simply not true. The truth is that america, like England, is a warfare welfare state; the masses of money pumped into the military are largely wasted on crap and produce too few benefits for the troops.
How else do you explain the fact that american troops (twice the military investment of the whole rest of the world) have to pay for their own body armour? I've even heard it said that they have to shout BANG BANG! during training instead of firing training rounds :facepalm:
(I'd appreciate confirmation/denial from any mil bods on this one, I thought the yanks used miles laser tagging for a start).

So how come the warfare welfare state exists? Because the driving force that makes capitalism produce good stuff (competition) is removed (Antonov refueller contract, anyone?) by the buy american policy. american companies don't have to compete; they can knock out any old junk at any price and they KNOW it will get bought by their primary market; america.
Home production does have some military advantages, but at the moment the driving force of competition just is NOT there.
While Obama's budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle.
I'm not sure about cutting the C17. america really needs to IMPROVE her deployability (It took them HOW long to build up an M1 strike force to invade Iraq? and even then they were so clustered up in their depots that even incompetant Saddam managed to splat a few with a scud) for her military if she wants to maintain global strike capability. The aircraft they have now are old and too few in number.
If I remember right the old marine expeditionary vehicle is WW2 vintage and the new one is just bloody awful.
The marines need a good vehicle (possibly M113?) and the air force needs airlift ability to support the army who they've forbade to operate that airlift capability.

As for the F35 alternative engine, frankly the harrier has a high enough accident rate hovering on four thrust columns (F35 has only 2) and F35 is shaping up to be an all around Turkey, I'd say dropping F35 and it's big brother f(ailure)22 (c)raptor is a great place to peel pounds off the warfare welfare sate...
 
Top