Obama outlines $3.6 trillion spending plan
'Challenges we face are too large to ignore,' he says in detailing budget

updated 47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama says that while the details may change,
any budget passed by Congress must cut the deficit, reform health care,
invest in education and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

After a week dominated by outrage over enormous corporate bonuses at
bailed-out companies, Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to
turn the focus back on his budget proposal and getting it through Congress.

But even as he outlined his four key requirements for a spending plan that
would top $3.6 trillion, there was growing unease on Capitol Hill over a
budget that congressional auditors say will generate $9.3 trillion in red
ink over the next decade.

"I realize there are those who say these plans are too ambitious to enact,"
Obama said. "To that I say that the challenges we face are too large to
ignore. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next president or
the next generation - I came here to solve them."

Republicans, however, slammed Obama's budget as a breathtaking spending
spree. As states and families are struggling to cut spending, the
president's budget "spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much,"
said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, in the weekly Republican address.

Sales pitch
Obama spent two days in California this week taking his sales pitch directly
to the people. The campaign took him from town-hall meetings to Jay Leno's
"The Tonight Show" set in an effort to garner support for a budget that will
pay for his key priorities. At the same time, he is promising to cut the
deficit in half by the end of his four-year term.

His message, however, was drowned out for much of the week by revelations
that American International Group Inc. paid out $165 million in bonuses to
employees, including to traders in the financial unit that nearly caused the
insurance giant's collapse. The public outrage was followed by congressional
efforts to impose punitive taxes on those payouts.

In his Saturday message, Obama contended that ordinary Americans are more
concerned about having a paycheck and being able to pay their college or
medical bills more than they are about "the news of the day in Washington."

And those are the concerns, he said, that he addresses in his budget,
calling it an economic blueprint for the future. It is, he said, "a vision
of America where growth is not based on real estate bubbles or
over-leveraged banks, but on a firm foundation of investments in energy,
education and health care that will lead to a real and lasting prosperity."

Obama's four priorities
With a nod to Capitol Hill, he said the specific dollar amounts in his
budget plan will likely change, but in the end his four priorities must be
met.

Those are plans to boost investments in clean energy technologies, including
wind and solar power; increased funding for childhood education programs,
affordable college costs and higher standards for schools; health care
reform that will lower costs, including Medicare and Medicaid; and a
scrutiny on domestic spending that will lead to cuts in the deficit.

"The American people sent us here to get things done, and at this moment of
great challenge, they are watching and waiting for us to lead," Obama said.
"Let's show them that we are equal to the task before us."

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I couldn't get a job as a floor sweeper at the corner grocery store if I
didn't have a resume.
However, it is quite apparent that this is not a requirement in the heady
world of polotics.
You can be the prime minister, dictator or president without disclosing any
abilty to do the job whatsoever. Who would you blame for that? They get
away with it because we have continued to let them do so.

In article ,
"Eric Swanson" wrote:


.. . .


Republicans, however, slammed Obama's budget as a breathtaking spending
spree. As states and families are struggling to cut spending, the
president's budget "spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much,"
said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, in the weekly Republican address.

Where were these Republican critics during the past 8 years of budget
deficits spiraling out of control? We've done things their way up to
now; don't you think it's time to try something different?

The economic activity generated by building things needed by the
military in World War II is credited for doing more to recover from the
Great Depression than anything else. More than one economist has
pointed out that we could have gotten the same effect (on the economy)
if we had loaded the planes onto the Liberty ships, taken them to the
middle of the Pacific, and dumped them.

In article ,
"Vince Morgan" vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au wrote:

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I couldn't get a job as a floor sweeper at the corner grocery store if I
didn't have a resume.
However, it is quite apparent that this is not a requirement in the heady
world of polotics.
You can be the prime minister, dictator or president without disclosing any
abilty to do the job whatsoever. Who would you blame for that? They get
away with it because we have continued to let them do so.

I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but a political campaign here
provides a very thorough review of the candidates' resumes. It's an
adversarial situation, something like a courtroom trial. The opposition
is quick to pick on any perceived weakness in the other guy's
background, and the other guy has to either just accept the punishment
or defend himself. Compare that with sending a resume through a "human
resources" office to be evaluated by someone who doesn't really
appreciate what is required to do the job the applicant wants.

Also (somewhat related), it takes a license to run a beauty salon, but
not to teach and take care of other people's children in a preschool.
Is the situation any different in Australia?

On Mar 23, 7:33*am, Matthew Lybanon wrote:
In article ,
*"Eric Swanson" wrote:

. . .



Republicans, however, slammed Obama's budget as a breathtaking spending
spree. As states and families are struggling to cut spending, the
president's budget "spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much,"
said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, in the weekly Republican address.

Where were these Republican critics during the past 8 years of budget
deficits spiraling out of control? *We've done things their way up to
now; don't you think it's time to try something different?

The economic activity generated by building things needed by the
military in World War II is credited for doing more to recover from the
Great Depression than anything else. *More than one economist has
pointed out that we could have gotten the same effect (on the economy)
if we had loaded the planes onto the Liberty ships, taken them to the
middle of the Pacific, and dumped them.


One thing that WWII proved was that the New Deal was too small.

Before the war unemployment was cut in half and the economy was
growing by double digits due to the New Deal spending. The war sped up
the recovery.

On Mar 23, 3:10 pm, wrote:

One thing that WWII proved was that the New Deal was too small.

Before the war unemployment was cut in half and the economy was
growing by double digits due to the New Deal spending. The war sped up
the recovery.

You are a Democrat, I presume. Facts can be seen he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_depression.jpg

Note that by the start of the war in Europe the GDP per person was
only back to the level at the start of the Depression and WELL below
what a "normal" GDP should have been. FDR socialist "New Deal" may get
some credit here for turning around the bottom, but GDP only got back
to "normal" level by Pearl Harbor. So yeah, it's probably true the
New Deal was too small and that the employment of war was the answer.
But practically, it's hard to the public to stand still for vast
"pyramid building" schemes which unlike war do not have built-in self-
interest motivation. Though a number of such schemes do appear to
have been tried.

A friend of mine in real estate noted some time ago that we could have
turned this "crisis" around way back at the beginning by buying up
about a trillion dollars worth of bad mortgage houses and burning them
down. Now he says it's too late for it to work with such a small
amount of money.