Comments:Obama budget calls for record US deficit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

That would be nice if I could get some healthcare. It is pretty disgusting that so many children don't have healthcare.--65.73.102.158 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So call for the state to do it. Fephisto (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that it looks like the state is doing it. That is one good point of the budget, and I will actually give Obama a chance to spend his way out. It just might work, but good luck paying it off... I mean, will you guys see a massive tax rise now? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The setup of the US healthcare system is beyond a joke, and verging on a crime against the population by the government and corporations involved in the provision of healthcare. I remain unconvinced that Americans get 'the best healthcare money can buy'; survey after survey proves that countries with universal healthcare spend less per-capita, their workforces take less sick leave, and life expectancy is higher - both as a general item, and in terms of surviving common serious medical conditions. Healthcare insurance is a tax by stealth. I do not buy the arguments that the system is better administered than were the government responsible. Quite simply, the businesses you pay insurance to have a mission to make a profit, there is a percentage on top of what the healthcare provision costs that goes in their shareholders' pockets. I do not dispute that - in all probability - a government administered system would have a higher baseline cost, but my gut feeling is that such a system, even with the likely inefficiencies, would be less that the private business' cost plus profit. The clout that comes with a government system would greatly reduce the ability of pharma companies to charge sky-high rates for drugs; the running of hospitals on a non-profit basis would remove another 'profit' chunk that is not going to keeping people in good health.

To sum up, universal, free-at-point-of-delivery, healthcare seems like a no-brainer. I grew up with that, I believe it is a basic human right, and that Americans have been duped into thinking it is socialism - duped by people who are so callous as to wish to profit from the misery and essential needs of others. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're forcing people to pay for a system regardless of whether they need it, want it, or not. It is a 'feel-good' measure of redistribution of wealth at the guns of the government. It is centrally controlled, centrally planned, and centrally/universally dictated by fiat. For these reasons, it is socialist and from my point of view, tyrannical. It forces a dependence on the state like no other.

I do accept that the current hashed up scheme is inept, but I blame that (and I think rightly so) on those excessive burdens of the State. By subsidizing certain payments for one group, and less for another, and tight regulation in one area, and different in another, I think it is entirely rational to expect that the resultant system is one where-in the costs will be artificially inflated. However, to expect that the solution is advocating a complete central-mandate I believe is foolhardy at best.

Furthermore, if my healthcare/food/education/etc. is a right that needs to be doled out by the State, than I hardly call myself free. Fephisto (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama

fuck that shit

ah man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.175.146 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The deficit in the proposed Obama 2010 US budget is justified for several reasons:

   1. The budget has ambitious goals to change our energy policy, improve infrastructure,
      make our education the best in the world, reorganize our medical system and make it
      universal, make our auto industry competitive with foreign manufactures, bring back
      our leading role in the industries of the 21 century.
   2. All these goals require increase in our investment in above mentioned fields and
      will benefit our country in the long run.
   3. Improved education will raise the total level of culture and productivity in the
      country and will assure the country of its leading position in the world.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froytman (talk • contribs)

where are your four other reasons?--weirdjrc (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He said 'several', not 'seven'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • yes so three minus seven is four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weirdjrc (talk --weirdjrc (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Error re deficit projections

The article asserts that "[t]he new budget will use [sic] a $1.75 trillion deficit." This is incomplete and will likely lead readers to draw the wrong conclusion about President Obama's budget proposal.

The budget submitted February 26 is President Obama's proposal for fiscal year 2010, which begins in October 2009. The $1.75 trillion deficit is the projected deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began in October 2008, before the election. This number includes $1.5 trillion of spending signed into law by President Bush as well as Obama, including parts of February's economic stimulus bill and the recently passed omnibus spending bill. The remaining $250 billion represents a placeholder inserted by the administration in case further economic stimulus spending is necessary later in 2009.

In fiscal year 2010, the first year of the budget proposal, the deficit is forecast to decline to $1.17 trillion. This is followed by annual declines from 2011 through 2013, when the deficit reaches $533 billion.

• "A New Era of Responsibility" — Office of Management and Budget, 2009 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numeropolix (talk • contribs)

Obama and dems have never passed a budget.

Obama and dems have never passed a budget. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.21.157 (talk • contribs)