3.8 trillion

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 04:35 PM

Obama administration prepares to send Congress a $3.8T budget with emphasis on job creation

01-31-2010 05:13 PM EST |By ANDREW TAYLOR and MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press Writers
Enlarge This Image

FILE - In this Jan. 27, 2010, file photo President Barack Obama delivers the first State of the Union address of his presidency on Capitol Hill in Washington. To the joint session of Congress Obama said, "So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed... if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know... I'm eager to see it." Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are seen in the background. (AP Photo/Tim Sloan, Pool, File)

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) --
President Barack Obama's proposed budget predicts the national deficit will crest at a record-breaking $1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, then start to recede in 2011 to $1.3 trillion, a congressional official said Sunday.
Still, the administration's new budget to be released Monday says deficits over the next decade will average 4.5 percent of the size of the economy, a level which economists say is dangerously high if not addressed, said the congressional official. The official was not authorized to discuss the budget before its public release.
Details of the administration's budget headed for Congress include an additional $100 billion to attack painfully high unemployment. The proposed $3.8 trillion budget would provide billions more to pull the country out of the Great Recession while increasing taxes on the wealthy and imposing a spending freeze on many government programs.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration believed "somewhere in the $100 billion range" would be the appropriate amount for a new jobs measure made up of a business tax credit to encourage hiring, increased infrastructure spending and money from the government's bailout fund to get banks to increase loans to struggling small businesses.
That price tag would be below a $174 billion bill passed by the House in December but higher than an $83 billion proposal that surfaced last week in the Senate.

Gibbs said it was important for Democrats and Republicans to put aside their differences to pass a bill that addresses jobs, the country's No. 1 concern. "I think that would be a powerful signal to send to the American people," Gibbs said in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."
Job creation was a key theme of the budget President Barack Obama was sending Congress on Monday, a document designed, as was the president's State of the Union address, to reframe his young presidency after a protracted battle over health care damaged his standing in public opinion polls and contributed to a series of Democratic election defeats.
Obama's $3.8 trillion spending plan for the 2011 budget year that begins Oct. 1 attempts to navigate between the opposing goals of pulling the country out of a deep recession and dealing with a budget deficit that soared to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion last year.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the current budget year will be only slightly lower, $1.35 trillion, and the flood of red ink will remain massive for years to come, raising worries among voters and the foreign investors who buy much of the country's debt.
On the anti-recession front, congressional sources said Obama's new budget will propose extending the popular Making Work Pay middle-class tax breaks of $400 per individual and $800 per couple through 2011. They were due to expire after this year.
The budget will also propose $250 payments to Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving the normal cost-of-living boost to their benefit checks because of low inflation. Obama will also seek a $25 billion increase in payments to help recession-battered states.
Obama's new budget will set off months of debate in the Democratically controlled Congress, especially in an election year in which Republicans are hoping to use attacks against government overspending to gain seats. Obama has argued that he inherited a deficit of more than $1 trillion and was forced to increase spending to stabilize the financial system and combat the worst recession since the 1930s.
Obama's new budget was expected to repeat many of the themes of his first budget. But in a bow to worries over the soaring deficits, the administration is proposing a three-year freeze on spending for a wide swath of domestic government agencies. Military, veterans, homeland security and big benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare would not feel the pinch.
The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending and is designed to save $250 billion over a decade. However, it would not fall equally on all domestic agencies. Some would see budget cuts to free up spending for programs the administration wants to expand such as education and civilian research efforts.
NASA's mission to return astronauts to the moon would be grounded with the space agency instead getting an additional $5.9 billion over five years to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts.
Obama's budget repeats his recommendations for an overhaul of the nation's health care system, the fight that dominated his first year in office. It proposes to get billions of dollars in savings from the Medicare program and again seeks increased taxes on the wealthy by limiting the benefits they receive from various tax deductions. Both ideas have met strong resistance in Congress.
Gibbs insisted Sunday that the president's push for health care was "still inside the 5-yard line," but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, also appearing on CNN, said the public was overwhelmingly against the bill and the administration should "put it on the shelf, go back and start over."
In addition to the freeze on discretionary nonsecurity spending, Obama is proposing to boost revenues by allowing the Bush administration tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of this year for families making more than $250,000 annually. Tax relief for those less well-off would be extended.
The new Obama budget will also include a proposal to levy a fee on the country's biggest banks to raise an estimated $90 billion to recover losses from the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund. Those losses are expected to come not come from the bank bailouts but from the support extended to General Motors and Chrysler and insurance giant American International Group as well as help provided to homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosures.
Also on the deficit front, the president has endorsed a pay-as-you-go proposal that passed the Senate last week. It would require any new tax cuts or entitlement spending increases to be paid for, and he has promised to create a commission to recommend by year's end ways to trim the deficits. However, a legislatively mandated panel was rejected in a Senate vote last week. Republicans opposed establishing the panel because it might recommend tax increases to close the deficit.

Now thats some change..I know it's bush's fault ..any thoughts?

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 04:41 PM

This would be so funny if it weren't so true.

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

This would be so funny if it weren't so true.

I know my sister love this guy he can do no wrong even though she has lost her job 9 month ago..But the card is the truth..

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by The Situation

I know my sister love this guy he can do no wrong even though she has lost her job 9 month ago..But the card is the truth..

My sister and her husband used to treat this guy like he was the second coming. Now they can't stand him because of his backpedaling on the important issues and the stupidity he displays in his decisions. And they're hardcore Democrats.

He's nothing but a post turtle:

An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a "post turtle". The young man doesn't understand and asks him what a post turtle is.

The old man says, "When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

My sister and her husband used to treat this guy like he was the second coming. Now they can't stand him because of his backpedaling on the important issues and the stupidity he displays in his decisions. And they're hardcore Democrats.

He's nothing but a post turtle:

An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a "post turtle". The young man doesn't understand and asks him what a post turtle is.

The old man says, "When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."

True. my family thinks i'm confused because i live up here in the bible belt of the nation. Dc.va area. funny they don't remember me and my ronald reagan shirts.. but mom sisters. all love this guy i talk to them and they just say he hasn't been in there very long.

but what can you do politics is politics family is family it does make holidays fun though.

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 04:57 PM

On a side note i think that they really trust him or there all in as they say in poker..don't know..oh well

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 05:12 PM

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by The Situation

True. my family thinks i'm confused because i live up here in the bible belt of the nation. Dc.va area. funny they don't remember me and my ronald reagan shirts.. but mom sisters. all love this guy i talk to them and they just say he hasn't been in there very long.

but what can you do politics is politics family is family it does make holidays fun though.

I've also heard the excuse that he hasn't been there long. Which is crap.

That's like having a guy punch you in the face a few times and saying "Well, he hasn't been at it long..."

Okay, maybe that's not a fair analogy. I suppose that at some mythical point in the future he'll start doing a good job and keeping word. The problem is how much damage he'll cause in the meantime.

The stuff that he's screwing up now is stuff he should have learned as a Senator and positions before that. A lot of people complained that he wasn't experienced enough to be president. And it appears that they are right.

Really? When the fuck did The President of the United States of America become an "on the job training" position?

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

I've also heard the excuse that he hasn't been there long. Which is crap.

That's like having a guy punch you in the face a few times and saying "Well, he hasn't been at it long..."

Okay, maybe that's not a fair analogy. I suppose that at some mythical point in the future he'll start doing a good job and keeping word. The problem is how much damage he'll cause in the meantime.

The stuff that he's screwing up now is stuff he should have learned as a Senator and positions before that. A lot of people complained that he wasn't experienced enough to be president. And it appears that they are right.

Really? When the fuck did The President of the United States of America become an "on the job training" position?

his handlers where smart they made him out to be some sort of demi-god of sorts..yea he going to screw it.

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Situation

his handlers where smart they made him out to be some sort of demi-god of sorts..yea he going to screw it.

Hopefully not so much anymore. I believe that Massachusetts was a signal that the people aren't happy with his pushing agendas that the majority do not want and that he has failed to meet the expectations that he set during his run for office.

**Perdido** · 01-31-2010, 06:32 PM

But it's all Bush's fault!

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 06:33 PM

I agree

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by rahaas

But it's all Bushes fault!

**Big Smoothy** · 01-31-2010, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Situation

Obama administration prepares to send Congress a $3.8T budget with emphasis on job creation

Agree, the budget is too big.

And it will get bigger. US gov spending will explode upward.

Why? Medicare.

Job creation by the government:

Job creation is not about the government but about the private sector.

When national politicians talk about "job creation" I know it's a scam. But many voters go for it.

**danzik17** · 01-31-2010, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Hopefully not so much anymore. I believe that Massachusetts was a signal that the people aren't happy with his pushing agendas that the majority do not want and that he has failed to meet the expectations that he set during his run for office.

Disagree with your MA assessment there. The democrat candidate ran an extremely shitty campaign and basically presented herself as a douchebag. It was all but guaranteed for the Republican candidate to win.

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Disagree with your MA assessment there. The democrat candidate ran an extremely shitty campaign and basically presented herself as a douchebag. It was all but guaranteed for the Republican candidate to win.

I guess thats why obuma went there to shore up her vote....

**Dark Geared God** · 01-31-2010, 07:48 PM

Watching to much CNN

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Disagree with your MA assessment there. The democrat candidate ran an extremely shitty campaign and basically presented herself as a douchebag. It was all but guaranteed for the Republican candidate to win.

That state has been a dem stronghold since 1972, she shouldn't have had to do jack squat to get the seat. It's also a state that voted for Obama by 88% (maybe 78%, I'm not sure)

How did she present herself as a douche-bag? I find that hard to believe. Every politician is surrounded by staffers that help to keep their person in a good light and to stop them from doing stupid things. Especially during elections.

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by The Situation

I guess thats why obuma went there to shore up her vote....

Another good point about the elections in Massachusetts. Obama went there personally and tried to help her. And it counted for jack.

**danzik17** · 01-31-2010, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

That state has been a dem stronghold since 1972, she shouldn't have had to do jack squat to get the seat. It's also a state that voted for Obama by 88% (maybe 78%, I'm not sure)

How did she present herself as a douche-bag? I find that hard to believe. Every politician is surrounded by staffers that help to keep their person in a good light and to stop them from doing stupid things. Especially during elections.

Coakley Failures Cost Election â€” The Hartford Informer

She ripped on Brown for greeting his supporters in the cold which she didn't want to do. She or her staff misspelled Massachusetts on one of their banners/ads. And one of the biggest no-nos, she called Curt Shilling (Red Sox) a Yankees fan.

If that doesn't scream douchebag to a MA resident, I don't know what does. She needs to at least pretend that she knows her state and cares.

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Coakley Failures Cost Election â€” The Hartford Informer

She ripped on Brown for greeting his supporters in the cold which she didn't want to do. She or her staff misspelled Massachusetts on one of their banners/ads. And one of the biggest no-nos, she called Curt Shilling (Red Sox) a Yankees fan.

If that doesn't scream douchebag to a MA resident, I don't know what does. She needs to at least pretend that she knows her state and cares.

Ahhhhh...no. Okay, maybe the ripping on Brown thing, but give me a break. Treated them like shit? Not hardly.

Do you really think those are the real reasons that Massachusetts voted Republican? Really?

Because they're not.

Every single Democrat pundit, politician, and jerkwad has been coming up with any excuse they can for the failure other than the people made a valid, rational decision. I've read all sorts of crap.

Here's the very first sentence of the article (emphasis mine):

"When Scott Brown begins his term as junior senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it won’t be the result of this widespread shift to Republican ideology or pragmatism".

It's laughable the lengths they'll go through to spin it so that it's not a reflection on their party.

Da Nile, it's more than just a river in Egypt.

**danzik17** · 01-31-2010, 09:33 PM

So it's more plausible that a liberal state that has a decades old record of going democrat suddenly had a change of heart and went Republican?

Both you and I know that appearances count in elections. I've heard many people say that Obama won on the strength of his campaign, not his policies. If that's true, then surely someone can lose on the weakness of their campaign.

You can't have it both ways.

Keep in mind that I am actually pleased with this outcome. I don't like one party having a super-majority in congress and control of the WH. Still, I don't think Scott Brown won MA on his policies.

**Curt James** · 01-31-2010, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

(snip)

Just noticed your Ron Paul in 2012 sig comment. I really like what he's had to say.

Hoping Obama can make some positive changes during his time in office, of course.

**DOMS** · 01-31-2010, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

So it's more plausible that a liberal state that has a decades old record of going democrat suddenly had a change of heart and went Republican?

Both you and I know that appearances count in elections. I've heard many people say that Obama won on the strength of his campaign, not his policies. If that's true, then surely someone can lose on the weakness of their campaign.

You can't have it both ways.

Keep in mind that I am actually pleased with this outcome. I don't like one party having a super-majority in congress and control of the WH. Still, I don't think Scott Brown won MA on his policies.

So, you're comparing waging wars, a fiscal catastrophe, and a housing collapse to misspelling a states' name?

Obama won in part because people wanted change and, more importantly, because of the animosity that Bush created that made people want to believe that change was possible.

But I get your point.

**maniclion** · 02-01-2010, 04:10 AM

I want to believe that Mass. voters did what they did because of being fed up, but I wouldn't put it passed people to vote just because they thought the other candidate was a doucenozzle...

**Dale Mabry** · 02-01-2010, 01:20 PM

I think it was a killer combo that killed her campaign. Her poll numbers were great and slid right towards the end, which is probably the result of her gaffs, a state that already has 95% healthcare coverage that doesn't want to pay for everyone else, and the fact that people are fed up with President Obama's rhetoric that always seems to fall short of actually ever accomplishing anything. It would help for the Dems to listen to the other party, they do represent a significant part of the population which should be obvious considering it would take a majority of people in an area to vote them in.

**Big Smoothy** · 02-01-2010, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by maniclion

I want to believe that Mass. voters did what they did because of being fed up, but I wouldn't put it passed people to vote just because they thought the other candidate was a doucenozzle...

And Scott Brown is.....just another politician.

His acceptance was the typical ruse: "it's the people's seat."

He said the term "people" a few times.

It's business as usual in Washington.

**Big Smoothy** · 02-01-2010, 11:58 PM

Very important audio:

Thread: 3.8 trillion

Thread Tools

Display

3.8 trillion

Similar Threads

Obama Unveils $3.8 Trillion Budget

GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion

Retirement account losses near $2 trillion

Boffins find 1.2 trillion pieces of pi

Posting Permissions