« | »

Obama Won’t Balance Budget Just For Balance

From ABC News:

President Obama Won’t Balance Budget ‘Just for the Sake of Balance’

By George Stephanopoulos | March 12, 2013

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, President Obama rejected calls to balance the federal budget in the next ten years and instead argued that his primary economic concern was not balancing the budget, but rather growing the economy.

“My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue,” he said.

Apparently, Obama thinks it makes sense to borrow 47 cents out of every dollar we spend is sustainable. And he thinks that will grow the economy and put people back to work.

Apparently, Obama believes having more than $87 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (via Social Security and Medicare) is sustainable. And he thinks that will grow the economy and put people back to work.

Obama rejected a proposal put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan today that would balance the budget in ten years, saying the Republican House member’s plan “slashes deeply” at programs like Medicaid.

“We’re not gonna balance the budget in ten years because if you look at what Paul Ryan does to balance the budget, it means that you have to voucher-ize Medicare, you have to slash deeply into programs like Medicaid, you’ve essentially got to — either tax — middle class families a lot higher than you currently are, or you can’t lower rates the way he’s promised,” the president told me.

“So it’s really, you know, it’s a reprise of the same legislation that he’s put before.”

This is the talking point that has gone out. Even though the Republican plan is significantly different from his previous plans. In fact, Ryan’s previous budget proposals did not bring spending below revenue for decades. This budget would do so by 2023.

Meanwhile, Obama’s budget, if he ever produces one, will be word for word like all of his previous budgets, which were unanimously rejected, even by his own party.

“If we controlled spending and we have a smart entitlement package, then potentially what you have is balance — but it is not balance to, on the backs of the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families that have disabled kids. That is not the right way to balance,” he said…

This is exactly what demagogues always say. But, meanwhile, what has Obama ever proposed to fix the problem with entitlements, which he has admitted are unsustainable?

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 13th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Obama Won’t Balance Budget Just For Balance”

  1. mr_bill says:

    “…but it is not balance to, on the backs of the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families that have disabled kids.”

    In other words, what nerobama is saying is: you can’t restore fiscal sanity to the country without taking away all the glorious “freebies” that big government has showered upon its protected classes. This is nerobama’s warning: try it and I’ll tell all my constituents that you want to take away their free ride. Sorry nerobama, the free ride is coming to an end, we’re out of other peoples’ money. The biggest government in the history of the world is going to have to be gutted and reduced to a size that serves the people.

  2. captstubby says:

    they don’t write ’em like this anymore.

    The Bush Tax Cuts.



    Prepared by the Staff

    of the


    JANUARY 24, 2003

    83-912 WASHINGTON : 2003 JCS-1-03

    Reasons for Change

    The Congress believed that providing tax relief to the
    American people is appropriate for a number of reasons. The
    Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) projected budget
    surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 fiscal years (2001-
    2010). Federal revenues have been rising as a share of the
    gross domestic product (“GDP”). CBO projected that, during
    the fiscal year 2001-2010 period, Federal revenues will be more
    than 20 percent of the GDP annually. By contrast, during the
    early 1990’s, Federal revenues generally were only 17-18
    percent of the GDP. Individual income taxes account for most of
    the recent rise in revenues as a percentage of GDP. Federal
    individual income tax revenues rose to over 10 percent of GDP
    in fiscal year 2000 for the first time in history and were
    projected by the CBO to exceed 10 percent of GDP for each of
    the fiscal years 2001-2010. The CBO projected that the growth
    of Federal revenues would, for fiscal year 2001, outstrip the
    growth of GDP for the ninth consecutive year. Moreover, the CBO
    stated that “[t]he most significant source of the growth of
    income taxes relative to GDP was the increase in the effective
    tax rate.”\4\
    \4\ Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States, The
    Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011, January 2001, at
    The Federal income tax is intended to collect revenues to
    fund the programs of the Federal government. If more tax
    revenues are collected than are needed to fund the government,
    the Congress believed that at least a portion of the excess
    should be returned to the taxpayers who are paying Federal
    income taxes. A portion of the surplus could be returned while
    still retaining enough to pay down the public debt, fund
    priorities such as education and defense, and secure the future
    of Social Security and Medicare. Thus, the Congress believed
    that it was appropriate to provide relief from the high
    individual income tax rates of prior law. The Congress believed
    that this provision provides the appropriate level of tax
    relief without threatening funding for other national
    priorities. Finally, the Congress believed that the lower rates
    provided by this provision were a fair means to provide tax
    relief for all taxpayers.
    The Congress believed that high marginal individual income
    tax rates reduce incentives for taxpayers to work, to save, and
    to invest and, thereby, have a negative effect on the long-term
    health of the economy. The higher that marginal tax rates are,
    the greater is the disincentive for individuals to increase
    their work effort. In addition, the Congress received testimony
    from tax experts that high marginal tax rates lead to reduced
    confidence in the Federal tax system and lower rates of
    voluntary compliance by taxpayers. Lower marginal tax rates
    provide greater incentives to taxpayers to be entrepreneurial
    risk takers; the Congress believed that the high marginal tax
    rates of prior law discourage success. EGTRRA provides tax
    relief to more than 100 million income tax returns of
    individuals, including at least 16 million returns of
    individuals who are owners of businesses (sole proprietorships,
    and S corporations). The Congress believed that this tax cut
    would lead to increased investment by these businesses,
    promoting long-term growth and stability in the economy and
    rewarding the businessmen and women who provide a foundation
    for our country’s success.
    In addition, lower marginal tax rates help remove the
    barriers that lower-income families face as they try to enter
    the middle class. The lower the marginal tax rates for those
    taxpayers in the lowest income tax brackets, the greater is the
    incentive to work. The new 10-percent rate bracket in EGTRRA
    delivers more benefit as a percentage of income to low-income
    taxpayers than high-income taxpayers and provides an incentive
    for these taxpayers to increase their work effort.
    EGTRRA provides immediate tax relief to American taxpayers
    in the form of a new rate bracket for the first $6,000 of
    taxable income for single individuals and the first $12,000 of
    taxable income for married couples filing a joint return. This
    new 10-percent rate bracket is effective this year. The
    Congress believed that such immediate tax relief may encourage
    short-term growth in the economy by providing individuals with
    additional cash to spend. Also, the new 10-percent rate bracket
    in the Act delivers more benefit as a percentage of income to
    low-income taxpayers than high-income taxpayers.
    The Congress also believed that it is appropriate to repeal
    the 10-percent surtax imposed in 1993 to cut the deficit. This
    10-percent surtax on top of the 36-percent rate resulted in a
    39.6-percent marginal tax rate for those in the highest income
    tax bracket. Because the Congressional Budget Office was
    projecting budget surpluses over the next ten years, the
    Congress believed that it is appropriate to repeal this
    deficit-era surtax.
    Finally, there were signs that the economy was slowing. The
    Congress believed that immediate tax relief could encourage
    short-term growth in the economy by providing individuals with
    additional cash to spend. However, the Congress recognized that
    it was important to act quickly so that taxpayers are aware of
    the commitment of the President and the Congress to enact this
    tax cut and to adjust income tax withholding tables. It was
    important that taxpayers immediately see the benefits of this
    tax relief in the form of more money in their pockets.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    Wellllll…. now that’s out of the way I think it’s time for the Dapper Hafrican to squeeze in 9 holes.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »