Obama wants $74 billion more spending

[Candor]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring an end to "mindless austerity," President Barack Obama called for a surge in government spending Thursday, and asked Congress to throw out the sweeping budget cuts both parties agreed to four years ago when deficits were spiraling out of control.

Obama's proposed $74 billion in added spending - about 7 percent - would be split about evenly between defense programs and the domestic side of the budget. Although he's sought before to reverse the "sequester" ''spending cuts, Obama's pitch in this year's budget comes with the added oomph of an improving economy and big recent declines in federal deficits.

-------------------------

I wish Obama would grasp the concept that a decline in the Federal Deficit still means there is a Federal Deficit. Also I think his definition of "mindless austerity" and mine are rather different.

Here's a link worth checking out: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Jarvan]

Pretty brilliant political move.

No one really liked the sequestration. Now that Republicans hold Congress... if they don't agree to roll it back, they look like the bad guys.

And yet... rolling it back, and adding more spending.. will just balloon the deficit again. It really is sad that just about the only thing either party really ever does, is try to make the other party look bad.

But... it kinda harkens to the campaigns to begin with. Almost all of the ads, are about how bad the other guy is, instead of how good, or what the candidate will do.

I'd love to see a Republican come out and say they are running for President, but not running against anyone.

[Androidpk]

It's all staged kabuki theater.

[Warriorbird]

Obama's gonna mess up the Republicans when they don't actually deserve it. Kind of hilarious.

[Androidpk]

Obama's gonna mess up the Republicans when they don't actually deserve it. Kind of hilarious.

He isn't screwing them up by increasing spending. It's a win for both parties.

[Warriorbird]

He isn't screwing them up by increasing spending. It's a win for both parties.

You really think they're going to go for it?

[Androidpk]

You really think they're going to go for it?

100%

[Jarvan]

You really think they're going to go for it?

Sadly I have to agree with PK. Both parties love to spend spend spend. They just differ in what to spend on.

[Thondalar]

Sadly I have to agree with PK. Both parties love to spend spend spend. They just differ in what to spend on.

Someone gets it.

[JackWhisper]

Oh yeah, they love to spend spend spend.... just not on us.

[Johnny Five]

Oh yeah, they love to spend spend spend.... just not on us.

Maybe if you were a minority.

[Kembal]

I'd wait to criticize the budget proposal after we see what programs are getting the increases in domestic discretionary spending.

Also, I suspect we'll be turning budget surpluses in the next few years. Growing economy means increase in tax receipts.

[Ashliana]

Maybe if you were part of the military-industrial complex.

Fixed that for you.

[Candor]

I'd wait to criticize the budget proposal after we see what programs are getting the increases in domestic discretionary spending.

Also, I suspect we'll be turning budget surpluses in the next few years. Growing economy means increase in tax receipts.

You will forgive me for wanting to actually have a surplus before spending it. And some of any surplus should go towards paying down the debt.

I agree both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this mess. Which is why I think we're screwed - this $74 billion is almost certainly going to be spent. Sigh.

[Androidpk]

But there are no kickbacks with paying down the debt.

[Tgo01]

If we don't spend more then the terrorists win!

[Taernath]

We must not allow a terrorism gap.

[Furryrat]

Giving democrats discretionary funding is like giving a hipster a five-dollar bill. Sure, it's great for Starbucks, but in the end all you're left with is an empty cup.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's a link worth checking out: http://www.usdebtclock.org/I have checked out the link, but I'm not sure what message you were trying to convey. Germany has higher debt/GDP ratios than us in both categories, but doesn't everyone love Germany's economy? The UK isn't as well regarded but still pretty good, and their debt makes ours look like Argentina's, and Argentina's economy is no great shakes.

So my question to you is this: how do we know that public (or external) debt to GDP ratio is bad? What level, specifically, is bad? Is the relationship linear or higher order, like inflation?

[Candor]

I have checked out the link, but I'm not sure what message you were trying to convey. Germany has higher debt/GDP ratios than us in both categories, but doesn't everyone love Germany's economy? The UK isn't as well regarded but still pretty good, and their debt makes ours look like Argentina's, and Argentina's economy is no great shakes.

So my question to you is this: how do we know that public (or external) debt to GDP ratio is bad? What level, specifically, is bad? Is the relationship linear or higher order, like inflation?

I admittedly hate it when people answer a question with another question, but I'm going to do it here.

Latrinsorm, the problem I have with your post is that it reminds me of someone who feels they don't have a problem with their credit card as long as the card isn't maxxed out. My question to you is this: At what point does the US start spending only what it takes in, and spends some of any surplus to bring down the debt? What is the criteria? When do we stop accumulating more debt?

We can debate how much debt is too much, but at some point sooner or later, we will need to stop the deficit spending. So how are we going to get there without a major financial crisis forcing the matter? We don't want to end up like Greece.

[Kembal]

I admittedly hate it when people answer a question with another question, but I'm going to do it here.

Latrinsorm, the problem I have with your post is that it reminds me of someone who feels they don't have a problem with their credit card as long as the card isn't maxxed out. My question to you is this: At what point does the US start spending only what it takes in, and spends some of any surplus to bring down the debt? What is the criteria? When do we stop accumulating more debt?

We can debate how much debt is too much, but at some point sooner or later, we will need to stop the deficit spending. So how are we going to get there without a major financial crisis forcing the matter? We don't want to end up like Greece.

Can't end up like Greece. We have our own currency.

I know deficit spending really bugs people here, but one of the things I've noted is that the general American public doesn't understand is that our infrastructure is falling into disrepair. This type of infrastructure debt is just as much as part of our national debt as our financial debt. Deficit spending to bring our infrastructure up to par is not a bad thing, because of the increased economic activity and/or reduction of deadweight loss that will result.

Stuff like fixing leaking water mains, improving capacity at ports, building water treatment plants, bridge and road maintenance, etc. will prove extremely important for the long term health of the economy. That's the kind of spending we need to do, and that's why I said in my original post that we should wait to see what the proposals for the domestic discretionary spending are.

[Androidpk]

Can't end up like Greece. We have our own currency.

I know deficit spending really bugs people here, but one of the things I've noted is that the general American public doesn't understand is that our infrastructure is falling into disrepair. This type of infrastructure debt is just as much as part of our national debt as our financial debt. Deficit spending to bring our infrastructure up to par is not a bad thing, because of the increased economic activity and/or reduction of deadweight loss that will result.

Stuff like fixing leaking water mains, improving capacity at ports, building water treatment plants, bridge and road maintenance, etc. will prove extremely important for the long term health of the economy. That's the kind of spending we need to do, and that's why I said in my original post that we should wait to see what the proposals for the domestic discretionary spending are.

And why is it in such disrepair? Because we don't spend money on it. If you think these proposals are going to include stuff like this I have a bridge to sell you.

[Androidpk]

Thread: Obama wants $74 billion more spending (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?94272-Obama-wants-74-billion-more-spending&p=1738752#post1738752)
yeah, lets go deeper into debt

Dear anonymous negger, no. If you had some reading comprehension you'd know that isn't what I said in my post. I'm not in favor of debt spending.

[Latrinsorm]

I admittedly hate it when people answer a question with another question, but I'm going to do it here.

Latrinsorm, the problem I have with your post is that it reminds me of someone who feels they don't have a problem with their credit card as long as the card isn't maxxed out. My question to you is this: At what point does the US start spending only what it takes in, and spends some of any surplus to bring down the debt? What is the criteria? When do we stop accumulating more debt?

We can debate how much debt is too much, but at some point sooner or later, we will need to stop the deficit spending. So how are we going to get there without a major financial crisis forcing the matter? We don't want to end up like Greece.See, that's the specific question I asked you, though. I assume we agree that Germany's economy is in good shape, and their external debt to gdp ratio is almost exactly twice as high as ours. As to maxing out a credit card, maybe countries aren't like people, and the analogy of sovereign debt to personal debt doesn't hold. Judging from Germany and the UK even moreso, it appears that the comparison is inapt.