Limomangary

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-13/politics/politics_obama-congress-budget_1_trillion-budget-spending-cuts-federal-budget?_s=PM:POLITICS

President Obama unveiled a $3.8 trillion budget request Monday that hikes taxes on the rich, spends new money on infrastructure and education, but does little to reform the entitlement programs that pose the biggest long-term threat to the federal budget. Pres. Obama said “We built this budget around the idea that our country has always done best when everyone gets a fair shot…” Below is a fox news commentary segment: http://public.media.foxnews.com/021412/021412_al_economypanel_W700.wmv                        

My argument against specific comments that were made:

1.    One commentator speaks of businesses going under, but neglects to mention the OVERALL unemployment numbers, if employment is low then the main street businesses (mom & pops and up to the under capitalized businesses, less than 500K in annual revenues) find themselves most hit by lowered spending by the masses. This in turn impacts the bottom line of each of those businesses. Which by the way are not in a position to receive funding from the investment world and big banks looking for higher rate of return (these such business are interdependent, for survival, on the general public having cash to spend), most have the ability to self fund, or stem the tide, for a year or two maybe three but not more!      2.    Talks of higher debt but does not accept the fact that the current administration inherited not created the current debt load, or shall I say precursor to debt Armageddon!

My general argument toward all:

1.    RE: The call into question of experience (or in-experience) of the Pres. Obama and his staff as chief executives and not having the high level experience of budgeting and business development. The phenomenon of business senior executives moving into the world of politics as senior officers (of states and the federal government), that is in the numbers seen today, only began roughly 20 years ago. I’m speaking of the: George H.W. Bush, Michael Bloomberg, Chris Christie’s, etc. Most CEO types chose to stay clear of being policy makers and budget masters and rather wanted to be involved politically only on the fund-raising and campaign trails with interest in seeking residual benefit from backing a winner (nothing wrong with that fact; I call it “Walking with a Tiger”; and am certainly in favor of a capitalist society). But this fact stabs at such indications of “lack of budget making experience” as politics in the formidable years of our country was left to those that made their life and life’s work that of being a politician; with emphasis on “Of the people and for the people”. Capitalism is a great thing at its best, it allows for opportunity to create what you want in this country, the problem is when capitalist ideas spill over into that of pushing (or seeking) for political gain and mis-placed benefit.    2. For those that argue de-regulation of the banking industry as one of the key components that lead to the mortgage crisis, while correct in principle they are not correct in the history of laying blame with former Pres. Clinton only, it actually began with Pres. Reagan as was his effort to ease restriction on capital gains and new market creation opportunity for the industries and corporations that he was in the pocket of. Due to the spill over of capitalism (the financial gain) into the higher world of politics, the cycle continued through each subsequent presidency to finally the point of where we are today.

What say you my readers? Does any of this make sense and which is the best, and most important, the correct argument?