Obama budget cuts have little deficit impact

[KMAN]

Obama budget cuts have little deficit impact | Politics | Reuters

 

[Iriemon]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

 

[loosecannon]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

actually, NOT!

Ten steps back and one step forward is not a strategy for moving forward.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

actually, NOT!

Ten steps back and one step forward is not a strategy for moving forward.

Again, right wingers refusing to give any credit for anything Obama does. Though, I always expect KMAN to be a jackass who just posts for the sake of doing it

 

[loosecannon]

1) what does that even mean?

2) I am not a right winger, are you?

3) on the topic of balancing the budget, or even the budget generally, can you list anything Obama has done worthy of any credit?

 

[bigdaddygtr]

1) what does that even mean?

2) I am not a right winger, are you?

3) on the topic of balancing the budget, or even the budget generally, can you list anything Obama has done worthy of any credit?

So cutting 17 billion in wasteful spending isn't worthy of credit? Exactly, you're just an Obama hater and nothing he does will be worth credit in your eyes

 

[DamnYankee]

1) what does that even mean?

2) I am not a right winger, are you?

3) on the topic of balancing the budget, or even the budget generally, can you list anything Obama has done worthy of any credit?

So cutting 17 billion in wasteful spending isn't worthy of credit? Exactly, you're just an Obama hater and nothing he does will be worth credit in your eyes

1.) He hasn't done it yet.
2.) How much wasteful spending is still being spent?
3.) How much necessary spending will be cut?

Answering criticism that his cuts were but a drop in a $3.4 trillion spending bucket, Obama said: "Some of the cuts we're putting forward today are more painful than others. Some are larger than others. In fact a few of the programs we eliminate will produce less than a million dollars in savings. Outside of Washington, that's still a lot of money."

The spending cuts were detailed in a thick supplement to the budget the president proposed in February.

Going before the cameras at the White House, Obama said, "These savings, large and small, add up."

He said he is entrusting budget director Peter Orszag to follow through with the cuts. But there already have been indications that Obama will meet some resistance in Congress.

"None of this will be easy. For every dollar we seek to save there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent," Obama said. "That's how unnecessary programs survive year after year."

"But at this moment — at this difficult time for our nation — we cannot accept business as usual. We cannot accept anything less than a government ready to meet the challenges of our time," he added.

Tough cuts
The cuts will not be easy for Congress to swallow. Lawmakers from the potent California, New York and Florida delegations are sure to fight the elimination of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which gives money to states to help offset the cost of jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes. President George W. Bush tried and failed to kill the $400 million program several times.

About half the budget savings would come from an effort by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to curb defense programs, including ending production of the F-22 fighter and killing a replacement helicopter fleet for the president.

As Congress begins work on a new war bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into late 2009, Obama has requested $130 billion to fund them next year. That figure may not be adequate considering the increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan.

One of the cuts calls home a representative of the Education Department from the American Embassy in Paris at a savings of $632,000.

excerpt
Obama wants to cut $17 billion from budget - White House- msnbc.com

 

[Meister]

1) what does that even mean?

2) I am not a right winger, are you?

3) on the topic of balancing the budget, or even the budget generally, can you list anything Obama has done worthy of any credit?

So cutting 17 billion in wasteful spending isn't worthy of credit? Exactly, you're just an Obama hater and nothing he does will be worth credit in your eyes

1/2 of 1% is not exactly something to be proud of.. If your talking serious cutting. It's more like "thowing a bone" just sayin...

 

[Meister]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

Would you like to point to the link where you got the 170 billions? I sure haven't seen that figure tossed around...except by you.

 

[Iriemon]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

would you like to point to the link where you got the 170 billions? I sure haven't seen that figure tossed around...except by you.

17 per year * 10 years.

When folks talk about the cost of Obama's programs or the additional debt he's expected to add they frequently talk about figures that are based on 10 year projections. You can do it for savings, too.

 

[Meister]

$170 billion over 10 years is a step in the right direction.

would you like to point to the link where you got the 170 billions? I sure haven't seen that figure tossed around...except by you.

17 per year * 10 years.

When folks talk about the cost of Obama's programs or the additional debt he's expected to add they frequently talk about figures that are based on 10 year projections. You can do it for savings, too.

I'm not buying the "folks talk", I want to see a link that states this is projected out 10 years at 17 billion. Because everything changes for the next budget. You can't project out on this stuff...especially from a bigtime spender like Barry.

 

[sealybobo]

1. * Congress already has rejected Obama's proposed subsidy cuts for wealthy farmers.

Why? Who's defending the farm subsodies for wealthy farmers?

2. The U.S. budget deficit picture is worsened by the economic recession that has resulted in lower government tax receipts and huge increases in spending to try to stimulate the economy. Until a turnaround occurs, deficits are expected to continue at historically high levels. (In other words, Obama has an excuse for why he's spending. The recession is one and the other excuse is that GW didn't spend shit on America/In America when he was in office. All his spending went to the Caymen Islands, Dubai and Switzerland)

You guys ever consider that the GOP purposely bankrupted the government and our econonomy in order to push their radical agenda? Its called disaster capitalism. Us liberals knew what they were doing the entire 6 years they had complete control. No surprise to us.

Now Republicans said Clinton's plans were socialism and that he would ruin the economy. Were they rigth?

Budget experts believe that the only way to get deficits under control long-term is by making significant reforms to federal retirement and healthcare programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

See? They bankrupted the treasury so they could do away with important social services/programs.

 

[Immanuel]

Wait a minute... he added darn near $1 trillion in spending in his first 3 weeks in office and we're talking about cutting $17 billion over 10 years?

Something is screwed up here.

Immie

 

[sealybobo]

Wait a minute... he added darn near $1 trillion in spending in his first 3 weeks in office and we're talking about cutting $17 billion over 10 years?

Something is screwed up here.

Immie

More cuts to come.

And if Bush would have spent some of the money he spent on American IN America, maybe Obama wouldn't have to spend as much as he does now.

How much spending would you approve of? What are you basing your numbers on? So really you don't know what you are talking about.

What spending of Obama's is wasteful? What programs don't you agree with? You don't know? So you are just a big mouth conservative who pretends he doesn't get it?

You act like he spent the trillion in 3 weeks.

How much was Bush's spending? And are you fucking aware that Bush didn't include the wars but Obama is? HUGE difference, don't you think?

Don't answer me. Since you won't be honest and admit you are a dumb liar, don't bother replying back with bullshit. I already know what lies you will say.

 

[loosecannon]

So cutting 17 billion in wasteful spending isn't worthy of credit? Exactly, you're just an Obama hater and nothing he does will be worth credit in your eyes

It's worthy of relative credit, but mostly it's just a cynical lie on his part.

It's like charging a $1000 item on a credit card that is overdrawn and then paying $1 in payment.

Look at it this way: In the last stages of addiction the addict might be found in a bar trying to sell his children into slavery for one more fix.

Well that's EXACTLY what Obama is doing, selling our children into debt slavery for one more fix. Because he is too cowardly to govern in a fiscally responsible way.

But obviously you love Obama and will give him credit even for disasterous debilitating policies.

 

[loosecannon]

How much was Bush's spending? And are you fucking aware that Bush didn't include the wars but Obama is? HUGE difference, don't you think?

so far no difference at all. Obama promised to include Iraq and Afghanistan spending in the budget.

But he hasn't done that. He already asked for $83 billion in offbudget supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, then he promised it would never happen again.

Bottom line is that even including all the upfront costs for those wars the first year Obama budget deficit is still 3 times larger than Bush's largest deficit.

 

[sealybobo]

So cutting 17 billion in wasteful spending isn't worthy of credit? Exactly, you're just an Obama hater and nothing he does will be worth credit in your eyes

It's worthy of relative credit, but mostly it's just a cynical lie on his part.

It's like charging a $1000 item on a credit card that is overdrawn and then paying $1 in payment.

Look at it this way: In the last stages of addiction the addict might be found in a bar trying to sell his children into slavery for one more fix.

Well that's EXACTLY what Obama is doing, selling our children into debt slavery for one more fix. Because he is too cowardly to govern in a fiscally responsible way.

But obviously you love Obama and will give him credit even for disasterous debilitating policies.

You ready to pay your share of Iraq? $10,000 please. If you are so fucking worried about your grandkids.

 

[Iriemon]

would you like to point to the link where you got the 170 billions? I sure haven't seen that figure tossed around...except by you.

17 per year * 10 years.

When folks talk about the cost of Obama's programs or the additional debt he's expected to add they frequently talk about figures that are based on 10 year projections. You can do it for savings, too.

I'm not buying the "folks talk", I want to see a link that states this is projected out 10 years at 17 billion. Because everything changes for the next budget. You can't project out on this stuff...especially from a bigtime spender like Barry.

Sure, I'll back up my assertion.

Here's a WSJ article talking about the 9.3 trillion additional debt the Obama budgets are projected to create -- over the years 2010-2019. This data has been bandied about repeatedly with assertions about how Obama is doubling the debt.

The cumulative deficit from 2010-19 would be $9.3 trillion, according to the report -- $2.3 trillion more than the administration forecast last month.

Big Deficit Projection Tests Obama Agenda - WSJ.com

 

[Iriemon]

Wait a minute... he added darn near $1 trillion in spending in his first 3 weeks in office and we're talking about cutting $17 billion over 10 years?

Something is screwed up here.

Immie

No, it is $17 billion a year; it would be $170 billion over 10 years.

A major part of the difference is that a lot of the deficit for this year is short term spending required by the credit crises; versus long term budget issues.

 

[Iriemon]

How much was Bush's spending? And are you fucking aware that Bush didn't include the wars but Obama is? HUGE difference, don't you think?

so far no difference at all. Obama promised to include Iraq and Afghanistan spending in the budget.

But he hasn't done that. He already asked for $83 billion in offbudget supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, then he promised it would never happen again.

Bottom line is that even including all the upfront costs for those wars the first year Obama budget deficit is still 3 times larger than Bush's largest deficit.

He did include the cost of the wars in his budget, in contrast to policy under the Bush administration:

WASHINGTON, Feb 25 (Reuters) - The budget that President Barack Obama sends to Congress on Thursday is expected for the first time to contain recurring costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon official on Wednesday.

But the Obama administration will still follow the precedent set by former President George W. Bush by seeking supplemental funding for other ongoing military operations and costs of the U.S. struggle against terrorism.

Obama to add some war costs to Pentagon budget | Reuters

Where did Obama ever promise he'd never seek supplemental spending? I missed that.