Obama speech outlines deficit cut policy proposals

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

Obama speech outlines deficit cut policy proposals

President Barack Obama has laid out a fiscal policy "vision" to reduce the US budget deficit while upholding America's social safety net.

President Barack Obama has laid out a fiscal policy "vision" to reduce the US budget deficit while upholding America's social safety net. He offered a package of tax increases and spending cuts aimed at reducing the deficit by $4tn (£2.45tn) by 2023. And he attacked Republican proposals he said would harm the poor and elderly while cutting taxes on the rich. Mr Obama's proposal would raise taxes on the wealthy, a move Republican congressional leaders swiftly rejected.

The ballooning US deficit is set to be a top issue in the 2012 election campaign. It is forecast to reach $1.5 trillion (£921bn) this year and both Democrats and Republicans have said cutting it is a priority. "We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt," Mr Obama said in a speech at George Washington University in Washington DC. "And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future." Mr Obama insisted that spending cuts should not harm the US social safety net, such as the social security retirement system and healthcare programmes for the poor and elderly.

Republicans have offered their own proposal that would go even further than Mr Obama's, slashing $6.2 trillion from government spending over the next decade, in large part through cuts to government programmes that serve the elderly and the poor. The proposal, put forward by House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan, would also drastically reduce taxes for wealthy Americans. Mr Obama on Wednesday hit back at the Republican proposal, saying: "This is not a vision of the America I know."

In particular, he attacked Republicans' proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy while making elderly Americans pay more for their healthcare, as analysts have said the Republican plan would work out. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs?" Mr Obama asked. "That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. "The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But top Republicans, whom Mr Obama briefed on his proposal on Tuesday morning, have staunchly rejected his call to increase tax revenue raised from wealthy Americans. The House is due to vote on Mr Ryan's proposal on Friday.

"We don't believe a lack of revenue is the problem, and so we will not be discussing raising taxes," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Buoyed by the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, Republicans have won a series of policy victories, including forcing $38.5bn in government spending cuts for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Mr Obama hopes to retake momentum from Republicans on the issue as the 2012 presidential campaign warms up, analysts say.

Bruising battle ahead
On Wednesday, Mr Obama also sought to brush back liberals in his own party who warn cutting spending now would hinder the nascent economic recovery. "Doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option," he said. "Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order." US political observers expect the fight over the government budget for the fiscal year beginning 1 October to be bruising, as Republicans and Democrats push their competing visions. Last week, the US government came within an hour of shutting down as Republican and Democratic leaders battled to reach an agreement on a budget for the next six months. The deal reached just before midnight on Friday cut $38.5bn from the budget to 30 September.

Lets see how well congress can get along now that theres an actual, meaningful, and essential discussion being held. Probably not well. Also, sorry about the BBCs text format. They format with bizarre and annoying page breaks which makes copy pasting from there difficult and sometimes hard to read.

**daedalus-templarius**

Some quick highlights

* A debt failsafe that will be triggered if the debt-to-GDP ratio hasn't stabilized, and begun to decline by mid-decade. This will include automatic spending cuts, and reductions in tax subsidies, but no tax increases. Social Security, Medicare, and low-income programs will be exempted. It will not tie the government's hands in the event that an economic downturn requires fiscal stimulus.

* Cuts to discretionary spending, compatible with those in the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.

* Defense spending cuts, contingent on a thorough review conducted by Secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Obama himself, and savings generated by winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* Strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the health care law to recommend and implement cost savings reforms to hold down the cost-per-Medicare-patient.

* Simplifying the formula for providing federal matching funds to states for Medicaid, which would automatically increase in the event of a recession

* This is a big one -- Obama will propose using Medicare's purchasing power to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors

* Reductions in agricultural subsidies

* Comprehensive tax reform, which reduces loopholes, simplifies the system, allows the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners to expire, and reduces the corporate tax rate.

I enjoyed listening, seems like a sensible approach to begin with. Of course, since I think its sensible, epic republican histrionics will certainly be incoming. I'm glad during the speech he really hit upon the fact that all of the recent madness centered around 12% of the total budget, aka discretionary spending. Paul Ryan's budget proposal really makes me sick with its huge cuts to education and basically gutting medicare and medicaid, because that top 2% needs another tax cut obviously.

**Brushfire**

Too little too late. Both parties will not give up their pet programs to the axe.

If Obama wants to do something now without waiting for both parties to come to a workable compromise, he could as CIC pull US forces out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and order the CIA to cool it on covert operations in Pakistan. The money saved, as well as lives, would be significant.

I also think a mandatory wage reduction to Congress and Senate members pay based on the percentage of National debt increase every year might help spur them to get serious. After all, if they are not suffering, how can they appreciate the common citizen’s struggle to make ends meet?

**Mannahnin**

Needs moar taxes.

Hungry people need moar food. Poor children need moar healthcare.

**Frazzled**

Its good to see he re-proposed raising taxes less than 4 months after Congress blocked that. Although I'm actually ok with it...its just so Democratic.

I will note I actually supported many of the intital thoughts of the actual commission. Do I trust Obama in any way, shape or form at this point fiscally? Not one

ing bit.

Strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the health care law to recommend and implement cost savings reforms to hold down the cost-per-Medicare-patient.

Translation more death panels. Love it. Why don't we just throw people to the side of the road? Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.

**Mannahnin**

Yup. Death panels.

Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.

Not if they have Alzheimer's and can't afford insurance payments to cover treatment.

**daedalus-templarius**

Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.

Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.

They don't hate women, they just want them to bend to their will.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.

Not if they have Alzheimer's and can't afford insurance payments to cover treatment.

On the positive you only have to buy one present for them ever again. "Oh wow a present? Thanks! Oh wow a present? Thanks! Oh wow a present? Thanks!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.

Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.

Well...yea.

**ShumaGorath**

Translation more death panels.

So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.

Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.

Probably because they're fething our economy and largely vote for republicans anyway since they're scared of brown people and rap music. The last persons opinion I care about concerning the budget and economy is the person who puts nothing into it and isn't going to be in it in 10 years anyway. They deserve our respect and consideration, not our self destructive obedience.

**Frazzled**

daedalus-templarius wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.

Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.

They don't hate women, they just want them to bend to their will.

Don't we all.

**Mannahnin**

Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.

No mamograms for women over 70 on Medicare.
No MRIs for women over 70 on Medicare.
"We don't call them death panels. We prefer to call them cost efficiency Czars."

**ShumaGorath**

Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.

No mamograms for women over 70 on Medicare.
No MRIs for women over 70 on Medicare.
"We don't call them death panels. We prefer to call them cost efficiency Czars."

I thought you hated nationalized health care? What happened to your ideals? Do they not actually withstand contact with reality? What happened to the "free market"?

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!
(OT but you really should see Garden State. Its quite excellent. )

**KamikazeCanuck**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Translation more death panels.

So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.

Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.

Probably because they're fething our economy and largely vote for republicans anyway since they're scared of brown people and rap music. The last persons opinion I care about concerning the budget and economy is the person who puts nothing into it and isn't going to be in it in 10 years anyway.

I know. Death Panels? Really People really? I thought only pundits on Fox and politicians usedd those terms not real people. Guess this proves Mods aren't real people after all.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!

It's not true. It doesn't even make sense. You know it's trolling. I know it's trolling. Everyone knows it's trolling.

**Frazzled**

He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.
***You're a poster. You should be doing that either.

I thought you hated nationalized health care? What happened to your ideals? Do they not actually withstand contact with reality? What happened to the "free market"?
****What made you think I support the free market? I support good government. Good government and US government are two ends of the spectrum.

**ShumaGorath**

What made you think I support the free market? I support good government. Good government and US government are two ends of the spectrum.

So you support removing government meddling from senior health care? Is there a point at which your opinions stop conflicting one another? Nevermind the fact that you're attempting to deflect what was your standard anti obama thread troll as a legitimate opinion when it's just rinse and repeated in every thread, your attempts to legitimize it are now conflicting with themselves.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!

It's not true. It doesn't even make sense. You know it's trolling. I know it's trolling. Everyone knows it's trolling.

Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.
But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.

**ShumaGorath**

Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.

I claim you're trolling when you are. Which is often. Here is one such instance.

But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.

I'm pretty sure when they state that reforming and reducing medicare is central to fixing budget and healthcare issues they don't mean your parents are going to get to keep the current levels of care. They're going to get more then me. I accept that. You probably should too. But it doesn't mean they're going to get as much as they used too. It's whats going to happen because they cost everyone else a lot of money. It doesn't make someone a liar if they do something that adversely effects someone you know. It's pretty clear here that your opinions on the issue are being heavily effected by personal traumas related, but thats not a reason to be totally contradictory and conflicting when you discuss it.

**Mannahnin**

If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care. In which case, either a) He's not really a liberal or socialist. Or b) He has failed at protecting Medicare from whoever in the government (hint: starts with an R) does want to cut Medicare.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.

You know the address for the court of appeals.

**ShumaGorath**

Mannahnin wrote:If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care. In which case, either a) He's not really a liberal or socialist. Or b) He has failed at protecting Medicare from whoever in the government (hint: starts with an R) does want to cut Medicare.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.

He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.

You know the address for the court of appeals.

I hit their doorbell. I don't know if anyone was home though.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

Mannahnin wrote:If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care.

I personally think he is and believe he does. But the reality is he has spent sooo much money and put us in such a bind financially that he has to at least appear like he wants to fix it. And no one will take your comments seriously unless you talk about the serious problems, medicare being one of them.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.

I claim you're trolling when you are. Which is often. Here is one such instance.
Your definition, although more in line with your average dictator in seemingly again consisting of "agree with me or something's wrong with you," is not frequently shared by those actually desiring a discussion. In truth I may have misperceived your original post and not realized you didn't actually want discussion. Too Bad!

But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.

I'm pretty sure when they state that reforming and reducing medicare is central to fixing budget and healthcare issues they don't mean your parents are going to get to keep the current levels of care. They're going to get more then me. I accept that. You probably should too. But it doesn't mean they're going to get as much as they used too. It's whats going to happen because they cost everyone else a lot of money. It doesn't make someone a liar if they do something that adversely effects someone you know. It's pretty clear here that your opinions on the issue are being heavily effected by personal traumas related, but thats not a reason to be totally contradictory and conflicting when you discuss it.

Big difference in saying its going to cost more and then: 1) saying there will be no decline in care which is what was actually said over and over and over; and 2) determinations that make tests that can be absolutely life or death unavailable. Ask a woman if no longer being able to get breast exam screenings is merely not keeping the current level of care? As the immortal bard once said" "nuts."

**Mannahnin**

I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ask a woman if no longer being able to get breast exam screenings is merely not keeping the current level of care?

Speaking of which, I have another thread to post...

**Frazzled**

I hit their doorbell. I don't know if anyone was home though.

Wait that means you're in my yard.

**Mannahnin**

Not your yard.

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.

***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Not your yard.

WEll its more polite than the truth of the matter :

Being a weiner dog means the world is your toilet!

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.

Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.