Obama's projected budget. not much pain

[deziloooooo]

Big differences in Obamas budget and that proposed by pubs..on some I am questioning his ideas too..surprise?
---------------------------------------------------------------
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110213/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama wields scalpel to budget, avoiding much pain
.
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Andrew Taylor, Associated Press – 2 hrs 2 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's budget submission on Monday will take a surgical approach to a deficit problem that his Republican rivals say warrants a meat ax.

As Obama seeks $53 billion for high-speed rail over the next few years, House Republicans are trying to pull back $2.5 billion that's already been promised. He's seeking increases for his "Race to the Top" initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools; Republicans on Friday unveiled a five percent cut to schools serving the disadvantaged.

Monday's release of next year's budget plan will be likely ignored by resurgent Republicans intent on cutting $100 billion from the president's old budget.

The GOP drive to slash 2011 spending and much of the savings sought by Obama involve just a small piece of the budget pie — the annual domestic agency budgets that make up just one-tenth of federal spending. Tea party-backed House Republicans are trying to slash tens of billions of dollars in such programs to return them to levels when Obama first took office
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am wondering why he, the President isn't taking more of the suggestions of the Bi Partison committee into consideration, granted there were some hot potatoes there for all sides but it seemed to this neophyte that a lot of them, painfull as they were , where something to seriously consider, if politically to hot to go all the way with, then a partial way would show that some one was seriouse.

However have to bring this one up, hey I am a middle to the left.

Even though all have great intentions , you can't take the plotical out of polititicians , even the leaders of their party:

"But the GOP bill would preserve a program opposed by Obama to build an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is strongly backed by House Speaker John Boehner as it will save jobs in his state of Ohio, as well as Indiana and other states. And a program providing subsidies for small airlines to serve isolated airports appears like it'll go untouched — even though those subsidies are often hundreds of dollars per round trip"

Come on Mr Speaker..the Air Force does not want the extra engine, the Pentagon does not want the other engine , the Secretary of Defense does not want the other engine, naturally the President does not want the other engine..It is a big expnse by the way..some billions...the airoplane is now up to $90 million each with a suggested final of $120 mill each., was supposed to be in the $50 mill each, but because GE is in your State..there fore....{tsk, tsk..the white horse has some black spots possible..hope he doen't start sobbing up if he reads my objections..}

[Deleted]

Sometimes I feel like we are too far gone now, no matter what. Obama wants one thing, the Pubs will want another, but all of it will add up to jobs lost. If jobs CREATED are not equal, which would still leave us in the awful mess we are in now, then what?? Obama has done a lousy job of CREATING jobs, remember. It was all his end of the world crap-- we HAVE to spend all this money OR ELSE-- then praising himself for jobs SAVED that may not even have been lost. So-- no matter what it all means more people will be out of work, on unemployment, welfare, and then more "We have to spend this money, OR ELSE!!!!" Who knows where it will end, but no matter how I look at it, it looks terrible. We've all seen the stats about a $50,000 a year job costing $200,000 to "create". This is not working, and we are in trouble. I'm sure all those politicians have THEIR money and escape plan in place.

[Gardening Grandma]

I am wondering why he, the President isn't taking more of the suggestions of the Bi Partisan committee into consideration, granted there were some hot potatoes there for all sides but it seemed to this neophyte that a lot of them, painfully as they were , where something to seriously consider, if politically to hot to go all the way with, then a partial way would show that some one was serious.

That was my reaction when I read about the Bi Partisan committee's recommendations re SS (raise the retirement age, curtail or trim the benefits and up the contribution). I support all three even though some will hurt me directly.

I'm guessing a couple of things - there will have to be a compromise. .In any negotiation, you start out offering less than you are willing to ultimately accept. The Pubs are going to propose some unrealistic gargantuan cuts, so he'll probably end up with deeper cuts than he currently proposes anyway...

The other thing is - if he DID come out in support of the SS proposals the GOP wouldhammer him with them in 2012 - even though they support most of them. The SS changes need to be done, but it will only happen if the GOP supports Obama in the changes and I don't see the party of "No" doing that.

[deziloooooo]

Garden agree...
I'll give you two little suggestion on Medicare that I ran into personally which I think could be tweaked, not done away with for those who need it and I bet if a figure of the cost of , it would be nice piece of change and these are only two tiny little tweaks of benefits that could be easily removed from the public end , and when you start adding up all the tweaks it adds up, but both sides won't do this. it's all or nothing.

Ok, let me get to it, the suggested tweaks.

Last march I had catarack surgery, boith eyes, complete success , as a aside , anyone faced with it, usually as one ages , do it, success rate super high.

I found out that Medicare PAYS once for a new RX since your eysight changes almost 100%..some times you don't need a RX at all..but usually the reading part, close up eye site does change.

I can well afford to pay for my new RX. The idea of new Medicare coverage is a good one..for those who need it, the financial help.
Under the program, I and Bill Gates are covered .

Change the parameters..all those with a income level of XXXXX{come up with what would be a # that a person would have a financial problem paying for}are covered, above those income levels , they , patient, pay the tab.

Same thing with shoes for those who have sugar. Diabetis 2, you qualify for one pair of the correct shoes for those who are diagnosed with the disease.

I haven't bothered to use that benefit. I can afford my own good walking shoes/sneakes..and I am sure they, the ones Medicare pays for , are probably very expensive walking shoes through the government, not the $50- "New Balance " I purchase once a year or so..as they get beat up.

Good, correct shoe for those who have sugar are important..it is a major problem with those with the disease. Circulation , sores that don't heal and other problems. So far for me, no problem , but same as on the RX on the glasses, a financial limit, under what ever decided levels, medicare pays, over it , patient pays.

These are just two little tweaks on Medicare, not doing away with the program, so very important but a start on the tweaking of mandated government programs.

Any arguments? any thoughts?

[Gardening Grandma]

Any arguments? any thoughts?

Arguments? Not really. I've only been on Medicare for about a year and have been pleasantly surprised, so far.
Part of my SS is already taxed because of my income bracket and I consider it a small price to pay to help with the deficit.

I would support means testing for some of the Medicare benefits, or even a higher premium for those in higher income brackets. This already is in place:
If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $115.40 per month.

But I'd support raising the premium a bit for those in lower income brackets (like myself).

[deziloooooo]

Feb 13, 2011 13:32:34 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Any arguments? any thoughts?

Arguments? Not really. I've only been on Medicare for about a year and have been pleasantly surprised, so far.
Part of my SS is already taxed because of my income bracket and I consider it a small price to pay to help with the deficit.

I would support means testing for some of the Medicare benefits, or even a higher premium for those in higher income brackets. This already is in place:
If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $115.40 per month.

But I'd support raising the premium a bit for those in lower income brackets (like myself).

I would go along there too..though there are so many that what they show is what they got..don't know how to make a differential..by that I mean, well best to go with a example.

I have investments, mutual funds, annuitues, stuff that I don't need right now, so let it lie , reinvest and where I have to legally draw from it, the absolute minimum.
In Florida, we have a homestead exemption that helps out Seniors as well as all from geting killed with rising home taxes being forced out of their homes by being unable to pay rising real estate taxes.

Since I was doing fine on what I get from SS/a few small penasions a military disability and when needed, drawing from a cash reserve account..I qualified for another home exception.

Even though there is a few bucks buried on the golf course I live on..{only I know where by the way and I'm not talking. Kids know though } they , town not interested in what I have buried away.....not considered as means testing.

Many seniors do have means tucked away that does not show as income or net worth..granted as I said , many do not...so a means testing would still be suspect for some but possible best we can do with out getting into intrusive government inspections of.

Hey who said we live in a perfect world, we do the best we can with what we have.

[Gardening Grandma]

In Florida, we have a homestead exemption that helps out Seniors as well as all from geting killed with rising home taxes being forced out of their homes by being unable to pay rising real estate taxes.

Our state also has an exemption for seniors, but it is subject to income limits, so we don't qualify for it. I'm fine with giving low income seniors a break on their property taxes, but it really doesn't make sense to me to give breaks based on age alone.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 13, 2011 15:43:43 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

In Florida, we have a homestead exemption that helps out Seniors as well as all from geting killed with rising home taxes being forced out of their homes by being unable to pay rising real estate taxes.

Our state also has an exemption for seniors, but it is subject to income limits, so we don't qualify for it. I'm fine with giving low income seniors a break on their property taxes, but it really doesn't make sense to me to give breaks based on age alone.

The extra exemption , there is a age qualification to qualify, senior, believe 65 not 62.