Obama's 2015 Budget May End Sequester

It's a decisive election year, so you know what that means? Budget talks!


The current administration goes on to say:

Source

However the Congressional Budget Office has voiced concern over this budget:

Republicans though are focused on cutting spending:
Source

So in a way both the CBO and House Republicans agree that this new budget will only further increase the national deficit (and consequently the national debt).

However, it was stated in the previous article:

But Republicans are trying to do just that:
Source

So that begs the question: Will any of this work? Or is it just talk for an election year in which nothing will get done once the elections are over with?

Is this just a round about way of increasing military spending, while simultaneously projecting the notion of reducing military spending at the same time?

Thoughts?

Oh this topic is going to be good.

Well, don't really care about the budget atm, but Boehner is lying about immigration, he even has his excuse prepared for when nothing happens, blame Obama. The Republicans won't even pass a partisan immigration bill this year, much less a bipartisan one.

Tend to agree with you on that one.

I'm interested to see where this goes, and while I do like the base message on how the source describes the plan, I'm curious as to the actual #'s and reasoning behind them.

I'm for spending where we need to spend, and definitely for closing the tax gap between the middle class and the wealthy % wise, but would actually be interested in seeing the actual #'s.

I'd like them to throw in some of their budget talks about getting rid of the standard of "if you don't use it, you lose it" practices with annual budgets, example:

If department 300049 gets 100,000 this year, and they only spend 86,000 then next year it's automatically assumed that they only need 86,000 on top of losing the other 14,000, and honestly that just encourages wasteful spending.

I realize that the government isn't the only entity that does that.

Encourage being frugal instead of basically punishing departments for not wasteful spending.

A huge problem is Obama's budget relies a lot on whatifs and not the current situation. I would think they need to address the current situation rather than some wild ideas that rely on the possibly of changes in policy. Then have the republicans bust in and say cut this or that.

A huge problem is Obama's budget relies a lot on whatifs and not the current situation. I would think they need to address the current situation rather than some wild ideas that rely on the possibly of changes in policy. Then have the republicans bust in and say cut this or that.[/quote]
I'm going to have to be inclined to agree, while our economy is highly speculation driven, I don't see a reason as to why our budget should be, but hey, I'm not an accountant, so whatevs. (I realize that a lot of budgeting is speculation, but basing something on "well hopefully this law passes" isn't a good idea).

Should the rich be persecuted for being rich by raising taxes on them though?

a.) Budgets are meant to anticipate the future. That's literally what they do.

b.) It's a proposal, anyhow. It has to be approved by the same people who would be responsible for approving the speculated reforms. Ergo, it's laying out the road map as the President would like to see it.

c.) Did he actually get the thing filed on time this year?

Having to pay taxes is not persecution.
No, none of them did, the house just passed its joke version last week. I don't know why any of them bother.

To a degree sure. But Obama's budgets always seems to rely on hope, a wing and a prayer. Then when it all falls apart, rather than take responsibility, he just blames the GOP.

The republican budget is no different.

It's not persecution, it's paying their share for the society they take part in.

No, unless you put the burden of social responsibility on them by way of raising taxes rather than provide any jobs for people living on cusp of poverty.

It's a proposal. When it falls apart, it has been because of the Republican Party.

If Congress passed his budget and it then caught flame and exploded, then the question of responsibility kicks in. But, until then, it's a bartering process. You don't lead with a conservative offer in a barter.

We're asking them to pay their dues, not skirt by them.

Where were all the jobs during the Bush tax cuts? oh yeah, overseas.

Right now, their budget is at best reactionary to the Democrats. Somehow they still manage to get their share and toss bread crumbs to the public. And vice versa when the control of all three branches are switched.

They're still overseas too, lol.

It's often the rich that benefit most from government anyway. The U.S. military alone intimidates most of the world into compliance, which in turn allows the globalization/exploitation that allows the rich to get richer.

I wonder if that's why, despite wanting "Small Government" the Republicans always want a "Strong national defense". Seriously, when was the last time any Westernized country's sovereignty was questioned, much less the United States. NATO pretty much put an end to that, since any conflict would escalate to a World War.

Wut? I must not be parsing this correctly. It almost sounds like you're saying the government should put a gun to the heads of the "job-makers" (rich people) and say, "Go hire poor people," instead of simply expecting them to pay taxes.

meant created

I speak more of public works projects, or the government hiring Americans to do work for their own government, rather than hire a foreign company that employers other foreign workers. The basis of the Federal Reserve after new money is created is to put that money in the hands of tax payers, rather than eating it up buying bonds.

That too. Although rumor is some manufacturing jobs are coming back.

I hate to say it, but I strongly disagree with the premise of budgets that encompass proposed changes to taxes. A budget should outline the expected and prudent cost of maintaining the government and any deficits or surpluses should dictate the taxes for that year. Taxes should be a flat rate for all income levels, capital gains included. Business tax rates should be subject to adjustment based on the cost of regulating or insuring that industry. And money should only be taxed once. The idea being that the taxes on gas should be used only to fund roadworks, the taxes on tobacco should be used only to fund the regulatory body, and income/gains taxes should be used to fund the military and general federal costs. And, can we please change the way appropriations works, it's a horribly inefficient and broken system that pads government contractors' pockets at nearly the cost of the government doing it itself.

It's idealistic and impractical, I know.


This is a pretty dishonest portrayal by some people, manufacturing jobs have increased, but they are almost exclusively either temp/contract or very low level assembly jobs that pay half of what the jobs they're replacing did. In fact, there is also a marked decrease in the number of union jobs and supervisory jobs.

I would say that in this case at least the Military is employing people, but even that scenario is no longer true. Military is shrinking, while the costs of new technology rises.

I'd like to see the actual numbers of cost of roads/infrastructure to the taxes obtained from fuel, and didn't Cali have a large problem with their budget when tourism dropped in/around 2005? Prompting those horrible Arnold commercials?

It sounds great in theory, but theory vs practicality are different things.

edit: not to mention that then again there's the problem of the poor already having very little disposable income, hence why their tax rate is lower in the first place.

Honest question: you seem to largely hew to conservative fiscal policy (so do I, so don't read that confrontationally) yet appear to support unions. How does that work out?

Let's put it another way. Budgets are based off speculation. The hiring practices of businesses are based off speculation of various markets. All this speculation points to a collapse of the USD during the next bubble bursts (2017-2018). Everyone seems content with just letting things collapse.

How do you change any of it? Or does the notion of changing something that seems so massive, out of reach, and ultimately inevitable only leads to more apathy?

I don't particularly support unions, I support collective bargaining as it's often the only method to resolve grievances between employers and their employees. Most states have passed legislation in the last 40 years that effectively outlaw collective bargaining and that creates a real need for unions in those areas.

Let's be clear, though, unions have expanded far beyond the scope of their use and choke companies to death with exponentially increasing legacy costs and generally result in a less productive workforce. But, if you look at the places where unions are non-existent, workers are generally MUCH more unhappy and companies are increasingly eliminating skilled positions and forcing less people to do more work for less money while paying executives millions in bonuses.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The people who organized the first unions could see the problems associated with them within a few years of their inception, which was almost a century ago now. Thanks for clarifying, though; seems to mimic my feelings on the subject.