100 Million Dollars Isn't A Lot Of Money?

[Burp]

Robert Gibbs says 100 million dollars isn't a lot of money in Washington D.C. A few weeks ago Biggs said 8 billion in appropriations (pork) wasn't a lot of money.

JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN: You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS: I'm not making jokes about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

LOVEN: The point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.

TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule -- $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that...

GIBBS: Well, in terms of -- in...(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: ...$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?

GIBBS: Well, what I'm saying is I think it all adds up just as the president said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be -- and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.

Today's Qs for O's WH - 4/20/2009 - Political Punch
-----

And then today Obama pledged 100 Billion to the IMF.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $100 billion U.S. loan to the International Monetary Fund to boost the IMF's resources and urged a bigger stake in the IMF for emerging powers.

Obama proposes $100 billion U.S. loan for IMF | Politics | Reuters
-----

He has no problem spending other people money.

 

[Iriemon]

$100 million isn't even spit in the bucket. It's a silly gesture.

 

[Article 15]

No, it isn't.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The Prophet is pulling the tired trick of representing a reduction in planned spending increases as "savings". Yet another lie.

It is such an established fact as I have stopped remembering all the sources (although I am sure they are still aroung), but any even partially serious attempt to lower government spending would run into the 100s of billions.

 

[Sarah G]

Robert Gibbs says 100 million dollars isn't a lot of money in Washington D.C. A few weeks ago Biggs said 8 billion in appropriations (pork) wasn't a lot of money.

JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about -- you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN: You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS: I'm not making jokes about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

LOVEN: The point is it's not a very big portion of the deficit.

TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule -- $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that...

GIBBS: Well, in terms of -- in...(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: ...$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?

GIBBS: Well, what I'm saying is I think it all adds up just as the president said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be -- and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.

Today's Qs for O's WH - 4/20/2009 - Political Punch
-----

And then today Obama pledged 100 Billion to the IMF.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $100 billion U.S. loan to the International Monetary Fund to boost the IMF's resources and urged a bigger stake in the IMF for emerging powers.

Obama proposes $100 billion U.S. loan for IMF | Politics | Reuters
-----

He has no problem spending other people money.

Well in the grand scheme of things, he is absolutely right. You are not going to make a dent in the deficit by eliminating one thing. If you had to manage all of that money, you might see that it is all relative.

It is a lot to very small countries or perhaps someone who wins a hundred million in the lottery but in Washington these days, it is not a lot of money.

 

[editec]

It's relative to what you're talking about.

As it regards the national budget it's not a lot of money.


Relative to my income it's quite a lot.

 

[Sinatra]

So it appears we all agree this was a ludicrous gesture by the Obama team - $100 million in requested cuts to government departments whose budgets extend into the hundreds of billions is a farce.

I agree with what another said - real reductions in government spending would be counted in the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars.

What Obama did today, delivering the news of a requested $100 million reduction with the outward appearance of having done something both legitimate and remarkable, is yet more proof of the complete lack of susbstantive leadership we have had in Washington DC for far too long...

 

[foggedinn]

A $100 million reduction from current levels would actually be quite an achievement.

I say this because I consider the alternative to be at least a $100 billion increase in current budgetary levels. This, of course, is much more likely.

Let's face it. Budgets in Washington never go down.

Even a one dollar decrease would be a minor miracle worthy of a minor Messiah.

 

[Vel]

A $100 million reduction from current levels would actually be quite an achievement.

I say this because I consider the alternative to be at least a $100 billion increase in current budgetary levels. This, of course, is much more likely.

Let's face it. Budgets in Washington never go down.

Even a one dollar decrease would be a minor miracle worthy of a minor Messiah.

Just to be sure that we're clear on the facts. Obama isn't asking for a $100 million reduction from current levels. He wants to add 1.1 trillion dollars or so in new spending and THEN reduce THAT amount by $100 million. The math looks something like this.. ( I'm working from memory here so this will not be exact )

2,500,000,000,000
+ 1,100,000,000,000

= 3,600,000,000,000

- 100,000,000

= 3,599,900,000,000

 

[oreo]

Same thing with "Chuckie Schummer"--who got caught on video tape regarding the pork/earmarks--that we were told by this adminstration didn't exist in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill:

"See Americans don't really care about a little "porky" in this bill." That's exactly what Chuck Schumer said.

To him a few Billion here, a few Billion there is just chump change.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm not a big supporter of Obama, but I do believe he himself said that this wasn't much money. His point was to start departments on the road to cutting spending and I believe he said you have to start with something. From that standpoint, he is correct. Getting departments to reduce spending and to look at the way they operate differently for the way they have in the past, you need to start somewhere. The real question is this; first of all, will they even meet this miniscule goal, and secondly, if they do, will it lead to further reductions in spending throughout all departments of the government?

 

[Sinatra]

I'm not a big supporter of Obama, but I do believe he himself said that this wasn't much money. His point was to start departments on the road to cutting spending and I believe he said you have to start with something. From that standpoint, he is correct. Getting departments to reduce spending and to look at the way they operate differently for the way they have in the past, you need to start somewhere. The real question is this; first of all, will they even meet this miniscule goal, and secondly, if they do, will it lead to further reductions in spending throughout all departments of the government?

Except it is utter crap - he is increasing spending by trillions and then asking departments to collectively reduce that by $100 million. Go out and borrow a thousand dollars and then only buy one candy bar vs two and call it saving.

That is a rough equivilent to Obama's show of reducing the size of government.

It is a completely asinine gesture that should be openly mocked by the media.

And yet...

 

[DiamondDave]

And because they will try and convince people it is "not a lot of money", it makes it easy for them to convince themselves when they waste this kind of money, extrot this kind of money, or skim it off into a pet project


When in fact.. that much money is 100X more than the average person makes in their life...

But to these people it is just taxpayer money that is no more real to them than Monopoly money

This is blowing smoke up the collective asses of ALL of us... hey look mom, I went into debt buying this Porsche even though I only make $10 an hour... but not to worry, because I found a gas station that charges $0.01 less a gallon, so I'm actually SAVING money

 

[Skull Pilot]

$100,000,000 is .0025% of Obama's $4,000,000,000,000 Budget

That's twenty five ten thousandths of one percent.

Chump change you can believe in.

 

[editec]

A hundred million here, a hundred million there pretty soon you're talking about real money!

 

[DiamondDave]

Or we could just do like Iremon or whatever the fuck that guy's name is.. .spend it now.. but try and look at the numbers starting 3 months from now for a 12 month period.. and claim it is a surplus

 

[RodISHI]

A hundred million here, a hundred million there pretty soon you're talking about real money!

Like adding pennies eventually you get a dollar. It all adds up.

 

[sealybobo]

A hundred million here, a hundred million there pretty soon you're talking about real money!

Starting to see the difference between Dems and Rep's?

These aren't the only cuts Obama is making. This was just a gesture. Symbolic. Showing that this new Administration is not going to just continue on with the same bloated government burocracy that has gone on for the last 8 years.

Remember Clinton had a surplus? Ok, so maybe it wasn't a surplus, but it was a lot fucking better than what Reagan & Bush 1 gave us.

Republicans say government is inefficient. Hell, they prove it. This is a step towards correcting that.

Did Bush try this? No he did not. Republicans are great at playing politics, horrible at governing.

I just love it how the Democrats over and over again will show you that they are way better than the GOP. Why people didn't vote for Gore is beyond me.

Now of course every once in awhile they will also show you how they are no different, but as far as a middle class person is concerned, there is no question we should be voting Democratic. Unless you have a hard on over god, gays and guns of course.

I just wish Bush didn't put Obama in the hole he is in. Imagine if Bush didn't blow all that money and neglect America for 8 straight years. Obama may have been able to do so much more.

And imagine what Bush would have done if Clinton started him off in the hole. HOLY FUCK can you imagine the harm Bush would have done? On purpose too.

That's the one thing I want you to realize. Republicans did all this on purpose. NAFTA fucking the American workers, on purpose. Purposely bleeding the treasury so they could end a lot of social programs they don't like, plus they made a fortune bleeding the treasury. Socialize the losses, privatize the profits. I wish more Americans realized that is the GOP way.

Do the Dems suck? Yes. Does the GOP suck more? I believe they do. A lot more. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Mr. President]

Lets be real. Voters Suck

 

[sealybobo]

Lets be real. Voters Suck

Great George Carlin

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.'"