Here's the headline: Obama Unveils $3.83T Budget With Massive Deficits

[depakid]

Watch the frames:

President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.83 trillion budget on Monday that would pour more money into the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a wide swath of government programs.

The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, topping last year's then unprecedented $1.41 trillion gap. The deficit would remain above $1 trillion in 2011 although the president proposed to institute a three-year budget freeze on a variety of programs outside of the military and homeland security as well as increasing taxes on energy producers and families making more than $250,000.

Echoing the pledge in his State of the Union address to make job creation his top priority, Obama put forward a budget that included a $100 billion jobs measure that would provide tax breaks to encourage businesses to boost hiring as well as increased government spending on infrastructure and energy projects. He called for fast congressional action to speed relief to millions left unemployed in the worst recession since the 1930s.

After a protracted battle on health care dominated his first year in office and led to a string of Democratic election defeats, the administration hopes its new budget will convince Americans the president is focused on fixing the economy.

More of these in the article- and in more articles to come; http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9715793

[unhappycamper]

1. Well, 'defense' spending is a trillion dollars a year. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Bush wasted so much money on war

and I am sad that we are - it has to stop

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. He must say that this is for jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs and small businesses

we need to start making things to sell to other countries and slow down on importing - jobs jobs jobs (American jobs).

[depakid]

5. Yep- and here's a suggestion: Teach The Public How to Get Out Of The Mess We're In

Using more effective frames

The President wants businesses that hire new employees this year to get $5,000 per hire, in the form of a tax credit. That will come to about $33 billion. It's good step. He's also supporting a cut in the capital gains tax for small businesses. That makes sense; after all, small businesses generate most jobs.

But here's the problem. Both of these measures, and many of the other tax cuts he's proposing, give ammunition to supply-siders who think the way out of this awful economy is simply to cut taxes on businesses. If a new jobs tax credit is a good idea, why not a cut corporate income taxes? If it's useful to reduce capital gains taxes for small businesses, why isn't it useful to reduce them for all businesses?

...The answer, of course, is that across-the-board supply-side tax cuts for businesses don't increase the demand for the things businesses produce. They're useful only to the extent businesses are confident consumers are out there, able and willing to buy.

...f John Maynard Keynes taught us anything, it's that a federal budget is not at all like a family budget. In fact, it's precisely because families have to pull in their belts that the federal government has to let its belt out. When consumers and businesses aren't buying much of anything, the government has to fill the gap. That's the only way to get jobs and get the economy moving again. Once the economy is percolating, the government can pull back. By then, tax revenues will soar, and the long-term deficit will shrink.

...if the public learns the wrong set of lessons -- that tax cuts for businesses are good, and deficit reduction starting now is good -- there's no hope for getting wise policies out of Congress. The debate is framed all wrong.

The President -- any president -- is the nation's educator in chief. Everything he proposes contains an implicit lesson. The economic lesson President Obama ought to be teaching is that targeted tax cuts, mostly for small business, are good to the extent they give businesses a nudge toward creating more jobs. But businesses won't begin to create lots of jobs until they have lots of customers. And that won't happen until lots more Americans have work. The only way to get them work when businesses aren't hiring is for government to prime the pump.

One final lesson I wish he'd teach: The best and fastest way for government to prime the pump is to help states and locales, which are now doing the opposite. They're laying off teachers, police officers, social workers, health care workers, and many more who provide vital public services. And they're increasing taxes and fees. They have no choice. State constitutions require them to balance their budgets. But the result is to negate much of what the federal government has tried to do with its stimulus to date.

We need a second stimulus directed at states and locales. I wish our educator-in-chief would say that loud and clear, explain why, and then do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-needs-to-teach-the_b_441369.html">More from Robert Reich on the subject

[high density]

4. AP hates a Democrat spending money

Compare this to Bush's 2009 budget coverage:

In the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy. Democrats, who control Congress, are pledging fierce opposition to Bush's final spending plan -- perhaps even until the next president takes office.

The 2009 spending plan sent to Congress on Monday will project huge budget deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next and more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22981657/

[Jennicut]

6. Typical media double standard

[depakid]

8. Follow the frames

In the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy. Democrats, who control Congress, are pledging fierce opposition to Bush's final spending plan -- perhaps even until the next president takes office.

Next paragraph- after the loaded language, come the placid facts:

The 2009 spending plan sent to Congress on Monday will project huge budget deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next and more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Query: where's the impact and what's the take home message(s) in this story? What will folks remember as stories like this are on their TV's, radios and newspapers?

How do they dovetail with campaign commercials when it's time to consider our ballots?

[high density]

9. "strong defense"-- and the $3t number doesn't even include his important wars

It's ridiculous. I couldn't believe the article I was reading from the AP today. I was trying to figure if it was my own biases clouding my opinion, but then I found that article on the 2009 Bush budget and it became clear it wasn't my interpretation at all.

[rucky]

7. Here's the headline from the NYT when Bush introed his 2006 budget:

Bush Budget Plan for $2.77 Trillion Stresses Security

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07budget.html

[Bluenorthwest]

10. So listen. This is from ABC News

Which is TV. Which is more biased than FoxNews, just more skilled at the delivery. The 'headline' from a TV show. From ABC News.
I just wonder what DUers expect, why the watch ABC News or ABC at all, I've seen this place hysterical more than once over ABC News, but still the fact that it out Foxes Fox evades everyone. Do you remember the ABC Presidential debate? Do you remember the 'Path to 9-11' which blamed Bill Clinton and showed Bush as a hero?
All I'm saying is that it is time to recognize who and what they are. I see people on this thread comparing the headline from the Times about Bush to ABC News TV about Obama. As if the Times and ABC News were the same entity. They are not.
But I know, people like Lost because they don't get that either, and so they think ABC is not FoxNews Part Two, but it is. It is, it is.

[high density]

11. It's from the Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_budget

Here it is on another site for you to enjoy.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I'm not questioning the point made

I'm challenging the constant state of 'surprise' over ABC news. I agree with the point. But the thing is how long is it amusing to be 'shocked' that the sky is blue? It is ABC. Equal to FoxNews. So what they promote does not surprise me in the least, and also, they serve as a poor example of what all media is doing, because like Fox, they are not like all media. I understand they have an old name and are a 'real network' but I'm just saying they are the same as Fox.
So your 'enjoy' crack is misplaced. I'm wondering why people here continue to enjoy ABC. I've posted the same thing several times over the last year. I'm sure they are framing all Obama stories badly. They have done so since he first walked onto the stage. Before he was the nominee. I suggest that if we could move on from marveling that the shark is a shark, and toward shark removal planning, that might be better than simply pointing out the nature of the beast and then jumping in the water with it, for years on end.

[high density]

13. I guess the point is that we're not complaining about ABC News in this instance

This is a report from the Associated Press. ABC/Fox/CBS/whoever can choose to republish it on their website, but the bias and framing here is coming from the AP.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. And delivered by ABC

Is that AP's headline? Headlines are usually in house. I say ABC wrote the headline. Because it sounds like them.
My point is that no one here ever gets that ABC News is more to the right than Fox. And it is time to wake up to that fact. The fact that this bit of bias is off the rack and not in house is a moot point. I'm not claiming AP is non biased. I'm talking about ABC. To whom the OP links. I'd rather not have clicked their link, as I boycott them, because of being a Democrat. So like some other sites, I myself do not think ABC is suitable for DU. It is Drudge, with affiliates.
That's my point. It is not like I brought ABC into the thread, you know. They were part of the OP, and I said exactly what I think about ABC. Which is I do not trust them. My point was that, and that alone.

[asphalt.jungle]

18. yeah it's the AP's headline. ABC's in-house headline for that story is now:

"Obama Unveils 2011 Budget With $3.83T in Spending"

the unedited headline as sent out by the AP (yahoo reproduces it as sent) is what started this post:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_budget
"Obama unveils $3.83T budget with massive deficits"

[asphalt.jungle]

14. still ... it's not ABC news, they didn't produce the article or the headline

they subscribe to the wire services like the AP. The initial post just linked to the abc news site, but it could have been any site really. You'll find the same story on MSNBC or any site that subscribes to the wire services. It's the AP with the agenda.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Still, that is not my point

I should have said 'this is slightly off topic' but my point is not about AP, nor wire services. It is about ABC. In my book, if that story is on MSNBC's site, that would have been a better link to use, as clicking on ABC is money for ABC, and I personally have been boycotting them for many months now. I am of the opinion that other Democrats should also boycott them. The genesis of the text is not really important to the point I am making. Which is not the same as the OP's point, nor is it in disagreement with the OP's point. I agree with the OP's point, wildly. Fully.
There is no argument from me, what I am offering is more information, not contradictory information. Sorry if I put it poorly.

[asphalt.jungle]

17. ok i agree with that, but GE is still corporate media.

MSNBC might have a good prime time lineup, but they aren't the "good" guys. there aren't any. find a new source you think is worthy of increased clickthrus/online ad revenue and we'll go there when forced to read wire feeds.