Obama budget to cut $1.1 trillion in deficits

[Care4all]

immie....spending money to save money is COMMON in the private sector.

as example: a company putting in Geothermal heat will cost more initially but save them big in the long run..... investing in a new energy efficient building or retrofitting an old building with energy efficient insulation....

Buying new, more proficient machinery vs using the inefficient old machinery may cost more initially but save them money in the long run.

Spending more for a better material for their proiduct, may cost them more in the short term, but save on defective returns in the long run...

See what I mean?

It really is done ALL THE TIME, in many businesses.

 

[Mustang]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama on Monday will propose a 2012 federal budget that the White House says will cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The president's request calls for a mix of strategic spending to boost U.S. competitiveness and selective belt-tightening intended as a "down payment" on serious deficit reduction, according to his budget director Jacob Lew, who spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

Full details on the budget will be released on Monday morning.

So it's not clear yet where all of the estimated $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction will come from, or exactly how significant a swipe it makes at long-term deficit reduction.

But one chunk -- $400 billion in savings -- would result from the president's call for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending.

Obama budget to cut $1.1 trillion in deficits - Feb. 13, 2011

When I first saw the headline I was almost like a kid on Christmas morning because I thought this $1.1 trillion cut from the deficit was going to be for this next fiscal year, but it's not. It's over a ten year period.

Nope, not even close to being acceptable. This goes no where near far enough.

You seem to have a completely unrealistic view on what would be involved in cutting a trillion dollars out of one year's budget expenditures.

 

[simonsays]

Yeah well once they stop all the wars, cutting the deficits will be easy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Put your money where your mouth is if you want to cut gov't spending.
Vote for Ron Paul.

 

[Immanuel]

immie....spending money to save money is COMMON in the private sector.

as example: a company putting in Geothermal heat will cost more initially but save them big in the long run..... investing in a new energy efficient building or retrofitting an old building with energy efficient insulation....

Buying new, more proficient machinery vs using the inefficient old machinery may cost more initially but save them money in the long run.

Spending more for a better material for their proiduct, may cost them more in the short term, but save on defective returns in the long run...

See what I mean?

It really is done ALL THE TIME, in many businesses.

There is a difference between the private sector and the public sector.

What is evident in the OP is that spending will increase that is all that is evident.

The rest is nothing but "estimates" and we all know what a governmental estimate means.

Immie

 

[Big Black Dog]

Interesting. Very, very interesting.

 

[Care4all]

defense spending in 2000 was +/-290 billion, in 2008 it was over 700 billion including wars and homeland security....

surely there is lots of room for hundreds of billions in cuts each year, just for the Defense area of spending....?

 

[gekaap]

Wait a second, $1.1 trillion over 10 years comes out to a little more than $100 billion a year. Why is this so quickly dismissed as insignificant/inadequate when Obama calls for it, but when the GOP calls for $100 billion in budget cuts for a single year (though only living up to $32 billion) that's somehow praised?

 

[Immanuel]

Wait a second, $1.1 trillion over 10 years comes out to a little more than $100 billion a year. Why is this so quickly dismissed as insignificant/inadequate when Obama calls for it, but when the GOP calls for $100 billion in budget cuts for a single year (though only living up to $32 billion) that's somehow praised?

I would not say it was either "insignificant" or "inadequate" if I actually believed there would be a single dime saved. Unfortunately, I don't believe it one iota. I see increased spending. The "belt tightening" will simply be forgotten about or we will be told that instead of increasing spending by 8% they will only increase spending by 5%. That is not a "cut" in spending.

Immie

 

[gekaap]

It's true, we do not yet have the information required to validate the merit of the claim, or the reasonableness that it will be met. Have to wait and see I suppose. But that being said, the GOP leadership and the Oval Office alike are recently in press appearances sounding like they have come to some middle ground on some things. So that is somewhat promising.

 

[Immanuel]

It's true, we do not yet have the information required to validate the merit of the claim, or the reasonableness that it will be met. Have to wait and see I suppose. But that being said, the GOP leadership and the Oval Office alike are recently in press appearances sounding like they have come to some middle ground on some things. So that is somewhat promising.

That will only last long enough for one or the other to figure out how they can get away with stabbing the other in the back. Once they figure that out, all bets are off.

Immie

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama on Monday will propose a 2012 federal budget that the White House says will cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The president's request calls for a mix of strategic spending to boost U.S. competitiveness and selective belt-tightening intended as a "down payment" on serious deficit reduction, according to his budget director Jacob Lew, who spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

Full details on the budget will be released on Monday morning.

So it's not clear yet where all of the estimated $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction will come from, or exactly how significant a swipe it makes at long-term deficit reduction.

But one chunk -- $400 billion in savings -- would result from the president's call for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending.

Obama budget to cut $1.1 trillion in deficits - Feb. 13, 2011

When I first saw the headline I was almost like a kid on Christmas morning because I thought this $1.1 trillion cut from the deficit was going to be for this next fiscal year, but it's not. It's over a ten year period.

Nope, not even close to being acceptable. This goes no where near far enough.

and the alternative to cutting $110 billion a year estimate of the budget is ???????

....the 45 billion cut this year that the repubs are suggesting???

are you upset with the tea party and repubs in congress for not proposing more cuts?


6 or 1/2 dozen, imo.

neither have a good plan on deep cuts.....

Rand Paul has put forth a plan to cut $500 billion almost immediately.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

immie....spending money to save money is COMMON in the private sector.

as example: a company putting in Geothermal heat will cost more initially but save them big in the long run..... investing in a new energy efficient building or retrofitting an old building with energy efficient insulation....

Buying new, more proficient machinery vs using the inefficient old machinery may cost more initially but save them money in the long run.

Spending more for a better material for their proiduct, may cost them more in the short term, but save on defective returns in the long run...

See what I mean?

It really is done ALL THE TIME, in many businesses.

They don't owe $14 trillion.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wait a second, $1.1 trillion over 10 years comes out to a little more than $100 billion a year. Why is this so quickly dismissed as insignificant/inadequate when Obama calls for it, but when the GOP calls for $100 billion in budget cuts for a single year (though only living up to $32 billion) that's somehow praised?

I don't agree with the thinking on either side of the budget cuts right now. We should be trimming off a trillion in 4 years, not 10. It really is pitiful and sad that we have such schmucks in congress.

 

[gekaap]

Rand Paul has put forth a plan to cut $500 billion almost immediately.

Does his plan offer comparable results over the next 10 years? Or is he just looking for a flash in the pan?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

When I first saw the headline I was almost like a kid on Christmas morning because I thought this $1.1 trillion cut from the deficit was going to be for this next fiscal year, but it's not. It's over a ten year period.

Nope, not even close to being acceptable. This goes no where near far enough.

and the alternative to cutting $110 billion a year estimate of the budget is ???????

....the 45 billion cut this year that the repubs are suggesting???

are you upset with the tea party and repubs in congress for not proposing more cuts?


6 or 1/2 dozen, imo.

neither have a good plan on deep cuts.....

Rand Paul has put forth a plan to cut $500 billion almost immediately.

This is more in line with what needs to be happening immediately. This 32 billion, 100 billion stuff is an insult.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama on Monday will propose a 2012 federal budget that the White House says will cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The president's request calls for a mix of strategic spending to boost U.S. competitiveness and selective belt-tightening intended as a "down payment" on serious deficit reduction, according to his budget director Jacob Lew, who spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

Full details on the budget will be released on Monday morning.

So it's not clear yet where all of the estimated $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction will come from, or exactly how significant a swipe it makes at long-term deficit reduction.

But one chunk -- $400 billion in savings -- would result from the president's call for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending.

Obama budget to cut $1.1 trillion in deficits - Feb. 13, 2011

When I first saw the headline I was almost like a kid on Christmas morning because I thought this $1.1 trillion cut from the deficit was going to be for this next fiscal year, but it's not. It's over a ten year period.

Nope, not even close to being acceptable. This goes no where near far enough.

You seem to have a completely unrealistic view on what would be involved in cutting a trillion dollars out of one year's budget expenditures.

You seem to have a completely unrealistic view on what will happen when we've ran up too much debt.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wait a second, $1.1 trillion over 10 years comes out to a little more than $100 billion a year. Why is this so quickly dismissed as insignificant/inadequate when Obama calls for it, but when the GOP calls for $100 billion in budget cuts for a single year (though only living up to $32 billion) that's somehow praised?

Who has praised it?

 

[Trajan]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama on Monday will propose a 2012 federal budget that the White House says will cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The president's request calls for a mix of strategic spending to boost U.S. competitiveness and selective belt-tightening intended as a "down payment" on serious deficit reduction, according to his budget director Jacob Lew, who spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

Full details on the budget will be released on Monday morning.

So it's not clear yet where all of the estimated $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction will come from, or exactly how significant a swipe it makes at long-term deficit reduction.

But one chunk -- $400 billion in savings -- would result from the president's call for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending.

Obama budget to cut $1.1 trillion in deficits - Feb. 13, 2011

When I first saw the headline I was almost like a kid on Christmas morning because I thought this $1.1 trillion cut from the deficit was going to be for this next fiscal year, but it's not. It's over a ten year period.

Nope, not even close to being acceptable. This goes no where near far enough.

strategic spending- aka, stimulus, investment in ______

selective belt-tightening - aka no touching entitlements, sacred cows

down payment- aka- just enough to make it look like I made an effort

 

[gekaap]

I don't agree with the thinking on either side of the budget cuts right now. We should be trimming off a trillion in 4 years, not 10. It really is pitiful and sad that we have such schmucks in congress.

Is that really reasonable, though? Last year's budget spent $3.5 trillion, with revenues of $2.2 trillion. Cutting $1 trillion in 4 years would mean that (assuming revenues remain the same) spending cuts of $1.1 trillion for each of the next 4 years, or nearly 33% of total spending. What measures would you recommend to realize such cuts? Would you be willing to increase tax revenues in order to realize your goal?