If we describe it briefly, we can restrict the phrase "necessary to live within our means", namely himself and he suggested that the government reduce the economical disadvantage for $ 4 trillion in the coming 12 years.
More carefully, everything looks very "cool." "A serious plan does not require us to ensure the equilibrium of the budget in one day. Economists believe that as our economy is just beginning to grow, we need pofazovy approach, and he asked the languid solutions and support the favorites from both parties … I now invite the equilibrium approach that will allow us for 12 years to reduce the lack of a $ 4 trillion. This approach is based on the teachings of the bipartisan commission money, which I announced last year, and is a continuation of the budget target for 2012 applets to reduce the budget deficit by $ 1 trillion, "- said Obama.
Long program from reducing the budget deficit, recalls Associated Press, Barack Obama introduced after a number of days after the United States was on the brink of economical crisis. If snow-white house and the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives did not succeed to the coming of April 9 to agree characteristics expenditures of the federal budget for the period 2011 to the end of the fiscal year, the lifelong vacation would head to 800,000 U.S. government employees. Parties are unable to agree on the last point on the reduction of government spending to the end of the fiscal year for a total of $ 38.5 billion.
Note that there is no economic growth in the U.S. has not yet been observed. When the extent of the issue and understating inflation, which show the power of the country, it could be shown and more than impressive numbers. But the main thing in the other. Now the U.S. total falls demand households which offset rising costs of the country. Already more than 10% of household spending (more than $ 10 trillion a year) — it's still the municipal grants. Cancel them, of course, possible, but then we get an almost unblemished scenario of the 1930s. with a fall in GDP of 10-12% per year. Maybe Obama has in mind reduction military spending amid rising social costs? .. In general, we'll see what he said then.
According to the plan of the U.S. President, the lack of reduction should come within the overall spending cuts, the need for which it provides its own since coming to power. To develop measures to reduce unit budget deficit Obama has asked the heads of the Senate majority and minority Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, respectively, and a favorite speaker of the House of Representatives minority Bonaire John and Nancy Pelosi respectively appoint negotiators on the issue. The negotiation process led by the chairman of the Senate, Vice President Joseph Biden. In general, it is — purely organizational point to the content of programs from Obama's case, he has not. But then he vorachivaetsya to the economy.
In his own speech, Obama reiterated his claims against the Republicans to keep tax breaks for the Yankees with the highest level of income. In addition, the head of the South American country has set up a mechanism for automatic regulation of municipal debt. It is a question of the likely need for spending cuts, not including social security programs, support for the poor and medical care for the elderly.
Well, here it kind of gave the answer to my question is, given with 2 paragraphs above. Reduced everything except social costs (about defense and the program from some other expenditure Obama said right), with all this revenue side of the budget is meant to increase by lowering benefits the rich. All reasonable. About the political aspect at the moment we will not be read, and talk only about the numbers.
Before the crisis, the demand of households in the United States exceeded their normal capacity, determined by real disposable income by about $ 3 trillion in year. This difference is passed over by the 2-main events: the reduction of savings and debt growth. You can look more closely at our work worldcrisis.ru, at the moment it is possible to note that after the crisis, if the U.S. government does not have launched a major issue, the decline in demand and, consequently, the U.S. GDP amounted to 12.8% in the year to merit balanced state between demand and income.
Since the fall in demand will inevitably cause and falling household income, balanced point on the demand lies below today than $ 3 trillion and $ 6 trillion, a decline of U.S. GDP by 55-60% from the peak reached in 2007-2008. Now the demand is already falling, but in-1's, slower than 1% per month (note that the issue in the United States since the end of 2008 as the time and reaches a value of about 1% of GDP for the month, which is, of course, is a random coincidence with the indicators of decline since stateliness of depression), and in-2, supported by rising costs (and lack of), the U.S. federal budget.
Since there are no miracles, the U.S. financial system in 2008 to illumine very aggravated his condition began in the real cost inflation and long-term all of this carousing, can not last. Or the Fed will begin to tighten monetary policy, and "prolonged" decline illumine 2008 return, or the printing of money will continue, but with the constant rise in inflation and, therefore, decline in real demand.
Obama, of course, not a clown, as it is occasionally portrayed in the media of different countries, and what to do, it is generally outlined in his speech quite right. The failure only in the fact that with all this, he did not say the scale of the configuration and said (which is natural, of course) that his proposed measure does not actually affect the crisis processes in the country. Well, indeed, as has been said, the decline in demand will be $ 6 trillion a year. In the fall of U.S. GDP at $ 12 trillion (officially — $ 14 trillion) Up to a maximum of $ 6.5 trillion. At this scale disasters, $ 4 trillion, 12-year, $ 350 billion a year … This is kind of funny read.
It turns out that the processes with which they (and all over the U.S.) will have to face, Obama has an idea, but their scale — is unlikely. And, perhaps, already has (after all, in the U.S. there are people who are reading our texts), but to say this is still not as well as to make something real. In any case, we are told by the software, then — the word of politicians.