Obama: Waiting a Year to Budget?

Posted by Ronda Miller January 28, 2010 at 10:53 a.m.

I've never been one to live within a budget. I guess I have been fortunate enough to never really have needed one to live comfortably. I have started budgeting recently though and am finding it is a very good thing. And, I would add, that it should be something we all learn to utilize early in our lives - whether we 'think' we need to or not.

As we approach our twilight years, we often find we should have saved, sweated, and budgeted far more than we did. Therein is where the confusion lies for me. Why does Obama want us to wait a year to begin a budget? (Maybe I don't get it because I'm more of a Republican at heart) I understand that if someone, whether that someone is a person or a country, can't budget what they don't have, but our President is spending money as though it grows as quickly as leaves on trees in a rain forest. Why do we have to wait to begin budgeting/constraining our spending habits? Maybe I'm not the only one who didn't understand or appreciate his comments - there really weren't many laughs except those President Obama seemed to be having.

I was also confused how asking the banks that were bailed out with Obama's huge spending are now to pay back some of that debt. How does that help us, you know, the little common people? Aren't those banks making their money off of us - those of us who are unemployed, homeless, up to their eyes in debt? Aren't credit card fees much of the reason behind why people are losing their homes and unable to pay debt now? I don't understand why all credit card fees haven't been capped at something reasonable (six to ten percent). I don't understand why they can now charge people an inactivity fee. There is a lot I don't understand. I guess there is a little bit of the 'Irish' in all of us.

I would like to ask that you be kind in explaining these matters to me. I just paid bills and seem to be over budget!

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

RoeDapple (anonymous) says…

Yeah......

But now he's gonna get serious....

ya think?
January 28, 2010 at 11:38 a.m.
schula (anonymous) says…

I was working the women's basketball game last night and did not get to hear his speech. I will have to find it online to either view or read. Once I have heard/read it, I might have something to offer.
January 28, 2010 at 1:09 p.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

This is as sluggish as our economy! :)

I give credit to our President for being an inspiring speaker and hsving high hopes for coming change. I also appreciate he can't do it all alone. We (I) just want to see a more embracing spirit. He said words in respect to both parties working together but also came across as pompous, in my opinion, in how he came across. I'm sure he's frustrated. Aren't we all?

Who would want to take that job next time around!
January 28, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.
schula (anonymous) says…

Happy Friday and Kansas Day everyone! I am just stopping in to give everyone the day off starting at 11:15 today. Have a great weekend!
January 29, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.
arizonajh (anonymous) says…

Rhonda

1. The budget they are working on now is next year's budget. The budget for this year was passed last year. Now think about all the agencies, states, and private businesses that because they recieve funds from the federal government base their budget on the federal government's budget. That money has been allocated already and much already delivered. Demanding the money back would just send those groups into chaos. This is not something that Obama thought up it is the way our government has always worked.

2. And let me make this as clear as possible. The "bank bailout" you refer to is the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Stay with me on this, Obama was sworn into office in January 2009. Therefore it was not "the banks that were bailed out with Obama's huge spending" it was "the banks that were bailed out with Bush's huge spending". Obamas huge spending was the stimulus bill, two very different things.

3. It helps because the money was loaned by the government (who borrowed it) and it reduces our debt when the banks return it with interest (if it is used to actually pay down the debt). We pay interest on our debt. Less debt balance means less interest that we have to pay. If you pay taxes lowering the debt helps you.

4. Do you feel they shouldn't pay it back? Or is it that because they pay it back you fear they will raise the fees you pay? The banks took the money but they didn't make loans with it, they played the markets and did well, they used some of that money to shore up their books and some to pay back the government, so wouldn't the fees be even higher if they never gotten the gov money and used it to make some of their own? They would be looking to customers to make up all their losses then. You go on then to say that the government should cap the fees on credit cards. So, on one hand you say the government was wrong to interfere with the banks by loaning them money but then turn around and say they are wrong for not interfering with the banks by capping the rates. Which is it? To interfere or not to interfere that is the question.
January 29, 2010 at 2:14 p.m.
arizonajh (anonymous) says…

Cont,
Say President Bush had not bailed out the banks. More banks would have failed. What if B of A and Wells Fargo etc. went under? How many people would have woken up to bank cards that didn't work and paychecks automatically being deposited into accounts that were inaccessible for weeks or months until everything was sorted out? How many more people would have lost homes and taken huge credit hits because they were unable to pay their bills? How many people would have lost their jobs not only at those banks but people who couldn't buy gas to get to work because their debit card didn't work? How many people wouldn't be able to buy food and meds? Also what would the unemployment rate be if we let the banks fail, let the automakers fail and left it to the market? The right likes to bash Obama for 10% unemployment but what would they say if instead Bush and Obama let all these company's fail and all the companies that supply them fail and then it was 15% or 20% unemployment when they all joined the roles? They want him to let all these people lose their jobs and then they want to turn around and blame him for the unemployment rate.

I know this makes a lot of people mad but it's like your brother in law calling you from across town and saying, "I lost all my paycheck betting at the track and now I’ve got no gas in my car and my kids aren't going to have anything to eat" Do you punish the kids for the fathers stupidity? I hope not. So you wire him the money to get some gas and go to the store. But he doesn't go to the store he goes to the casino but this time he wins. Later that night he shows up at your house chomping a big cigar and wearing a new watch and pays you back and you ask if he made it to the store and he says no but I'll go on the way home. Your pissed he lied to you, the kids still haven't eaten and you have no idea if he's going to the store or the casino as he’s leaving but you do have your money back. Can you then tell him he can't go to the track anymore? If he's like the banks he'll just tell you that he paid you back and to mind your own beeswax! The only thing you can do now is say you'll never do that again, but really are you going to let the kids starve?

What we should have done is given this guy enough money to buy gas to get our house and held his hand as we walked him through the store and saw what it was he was buying, and paid out of our pocket when we got to the register , but we didn’t. Treasury Secretary Paulson said the need was too great, waiting was worsening the problem and rules would just slow the fix and Bush and Obama agreed so we just wired the money no strings attached. This bank mess is Bush’s fault because he devised this plan with Paulson, this mess is Obama’s fault because he voted to go along with it, this mess is our fault because we let them do it all with us footing the bill.
January 29, 2010 at 2:23 p.m.
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…

arizonajh knows my brother in law?
January 29, 2010 at 8 p.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I was thinking the same thing, roe! Must be a cusin brother-in-law!

Arizonajh knows his info though and I thank you for taking the time to give me the additional insight you have. I did love the brother-in-law comparison. It made it hit home in an understandable way. You're either in politics or work with children - I'm betting my money on that!

I believe our states seem to already be in turmoil and I appreciate that budgets need to have projection, but if the money isn't there, it shouldn't continue to be spent.

What programs will be cut? How will those cuts affect our lives,and further job losses as Americans fear the domino effects throughout. I strongly suspect we're at the first curve in the recession snake. How about you?

I heard today about a woman willing to marry for health insurance - reality or publicity? It seems everything is so wrapped together that it is impossible to separate enough to undo the problem(s) enough to fix them.

Thanks for the clarity under number two of your answer. I do believe the money should be paid back and I fear how it will be paid back. It isn't a question of whether the government should or shouldn't interfere with banks. It is now a given that they have and will and they should have placed restrictions on them a long time ago. It doesn't make sense that the credit card companies put such high interest on loans that people go bankrupt because they can't pay them. How is that a win for anyone

I do thank you for your pleasant and thorough explanations.
January 30, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

"Therefore it was not “the banks that were bailed out with Obama's huge spending” it was “the banks that were bailed out with Bush's huge spending”."
However, Dear Leader voted for the bailout in one of the rare times he was in his seat taking care of business in the US Senate. If enough of his fellow Democrats had not gone along Bush, the bill could not have passed.
The Democrats did have control of both houses of Congress in 2008.
January 30, 2010 at 5:16 p.m.
ibroke (anonymous) says…

snap==== very true
January 30, 2010 at 5:48 p.m.
ibroke (anonymous) says…

looks like snap wins this thread! you get the blog award
January 30, 2010 at 7:28 p.m.
JKBagby (anonymous) says…

Yeah, thanks for the Info arizonajh. Enjoyed your posts. For me the "Forsaken Economy" Episode of Southpark really drove home the idea of a market economy. So with the info above I understand that both the Bush Bill and the Obama Bill were necessary.

When Kyle buys all of the residents' of Southpark's debts the people can go out and spend again which stabilizes the economy because wearing sheets, pointing fingers and playing with squirrels did not satisfy the vengeful economy.
January 31, 2010 at 7:55 a.m.
JKBagby (anonymous) says…

Ahem...Actually the name of the episode I refer to is "Margaritaville"
January 31, 2010 at 7:58 a.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

snap, I agree - it took/takes more than just 'a' president to do anything. All of them bear responsibilities in this mess.

Margaritaville, huh? I missed that one!

I did certainly enjoy Saturday Night Live last night. I knew as I was watching President Obama's speech that they'd (SNL) have a field day with it. The timing of showing McCain's whispering was too funny too! They do such a great job on that show for the most part.
January 31, 2010 at 10:37 a.m.
arizonajh (anonymous) says…

Snap
I think I covered that,

"Treasury Secretary Paulson said the need was too great, waiting was worsening the problem and rules would just slow the fix and Bush and Obama agreed so we just wired the money no strings attached."

and

"this mess is Obama’s fault because he voted to go along with it"

I guess maybe you didn't get that far? I wasn't trying to point to just one side. It seems to me that we (the average people) don't win no matter who is in charge.

Rhonda
Thanks for your kind words, very rare on here. No, I don't work with kids nor am I in politics. I do work in an office with 150 other degreed professionals that I could swear sometimes never matured past the age of six. I bet all of us put up with adult "children" who play micro-political games every day. They play at the office and at the job-site; they play at the schools and the church's. The game is "blame" and what can hurting the other guy do for me without me actually having to do anything. Their little bit of power rises and sinks with each dirty trick or accusation and the real work gets pushed to the back burner. It's the same in game in Washington just the scale is much bigger. Like Snap just wanting to get in a shot at Obama even though I had already said he shared the blame. Snap (along with Porch Person, Tom Shewman and Merill et. al.) want to point to one side and say, "they are the reason for our problems" while ignoring that anyone from their side played a role. I think many politicians from both sides go to Washington thinking they will change things that they can be a positive force for the common man/woman only to find out the in rules of this game that's a foul. They must play for the powers that be or find themselves on the bench until they can be kicked off the team. If they still want to play they have to get the money shot from the lobbies and once it's in their veins the lobbyest like pushers have got them. Political power is like heroin once they've tasted it, it matters not if there is a D or a R or an I behind their name they don't care what they destroy or who they hurt they focus their efforts on how to get that next shot and how can they get a little more in the syringe this time.
January 31, 2010 at 11:39 a.m.
arizonajh (anonymous) says…

Rhonda as far as whats ahead in my opinoin it doesn't look good. We are in a position due to globalization in which we will not be able to produce anything in this country for a very long time. We were brought up in a society in which most people worked as labors in one way or another. They labored in factories and office buildings and as they labored their dollars were spent on buying homes they built and cars they produced, and raising families, they ate lunch at restaurants and danced at clubs on the weekends and their money went to the people that worked there and they in turn purchased goods and services for their families. Then we had a change of heart. We bought into an idea sold to us by Bill Clinton and a Republican congress that company profit and cheap products are more important than jobs for our citizens. We now say that if a company can produce a product in a third world country where labor can be had for a fraction of what we earn here then the company should dump its workers at home and find the cheapest labor available to ensure those at the top make the absolute most money they can. We even promote that abandonment through our tax code. I hated the man at the time but Ross Perot turned out to be right about the giant sucking sound being our jobs leaving the country. That's why even Obama’s "green economy" will not work. We can invent fabulous new ways of producing power through wind and solar. We can retrain for the "jobs of the future" but as soon as we find the solutions to and refine the process of making this new "super" solar cell or wind turbine the process, the factories and the jobs will be packed up and shipped off to some poverty stricken place where downtrodden people will labor in unsafe conditions, damage the environments they live in and still kiss the feet of these companies for a dollar a week. Our "jobs of the future" are all temporary. Our "jobs of the future" have their future somewhere else. You can come up with the next feul saving car, a new super battery, ShamWow or Snuggie in Kansas and find a factory in Ohio or Florida to make it but if it’s a success eventually the product will have to be made in another country to return ever increasing profit required by Wall Street. All this leaving us ten years from now once again being asked to retrain for the "jobs of the future".
January 31, 2010 at 11:58 a.m.
arizonajh (anonymous) says…

Cont,
Not until we are all in poverty, our economy in taters and we can live in our valueless homes and feed our children for a dollar a week will we be able to compete "globally". We can be ten or twenty times as efficient as workers in Micronesia and still be unable to compete. Healthcare is the growth industry in America. That's why there is such a pushback on healthcare reform its one of the only growth sectors left, that and crime suppression. Crime and dying is what we have in our future. And now a certain governator out west wants to ship the prisons out of the country too. Until we decide that even the cheapest products are unobtainable to a man with no money, that cheap supply is meaningless without demand and that the country's economy cannot work with only a few at the top benefiting then we are doomed to ever higher unemployment, a lowering of living standards and a future less hopeful for average Americans and their children. By adding incentives through the tax code we can hope to sway some of those companies to remain here. I don't give it much of a chance of working with the overwhelming downward pressure pushing on CEO's to outsource to maximize profit. Boards of directors and major share holders don't care about you, your family, your health, your mortgage, or you putting food on your table. You can live in a homeless shelter and feed your babies from a dumpster for all they care if it will make them an eighth of a percent more per share this quarter. But as I said thats just my opinion.
January 31, 2010 at 12:01 p.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Your opinion seems quite sound and well thought out. Unfortuately I have to agree with you. I say unfortuately because it's a depressing and bleak outlook.

Surely with all the great minds we have in this lush and lovely country of ours, we can come up with some ideas that can assist in the salvation of our economy. While I think most of us have been spoiled rotten and are just now beginning to appreciate it, it is also a good thing to live more similarly to other countries and people. Perhaps our outlook on importance of friends and family will expand as our geme geme game falls away. Not to make judgements on the American people, since we are such a diverse group, but our heads and hearts have been in lala land for quite some time.

Let's concentrate on what we do have. That includes diversity, a huge amount of productive land, an aging population and a growing need for health care and, yep, that prison business is a huge industry. Maybe we can asign each elderly person someone from the prison system - no rapists, child molesters, murderers, to care for them. White collar criminals caring for the elderly as part of their sentencing. Well, at least it was a new idea.

I personally think our builders need to put together a heck of a lot more 900 or less square ft houses and many more strategically places facilities such as Babcock place. I don't know if you live local, but it really has it all. We need places such as it with super affordability and smart local. Have them for young families, singles, elderly, etc. Let's start making some essential changes. We know what lies ahead in some respects
January 31, 2010 at 12:51 p.m.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Additionally, if we know four day work weeks save in cost without costing productivity, and we do know this, why aren't we acting on it? The state of Kansas would save bundles within school systems, universities, government offices. No, everthing can't operate on four, ten hour work days, but those that can, should.
January 31, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.