Welcome to PatsFans.com

Obama Proposes $17 Billion in Budget Cuts

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by apple strudel, May 7, 2009.

  1. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It certainly seems like a step in the right direction. Half of the cuts is non-defense. If only the defense cuts would include Condi's (NSA) and Rummie's pensions.

    Obama proposes to save $17 billion in 2010 - May. 6, 2009

    How does the right resolve the cognitive dissonance induced by a Democrat reducing the size of a Republican's government (remember, while stimulus increased government's reach, it did not substantially increase its size other than hiring more regulators)?
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,200
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +316 / 9 / -13

    The amount is being reduced in a budget that is almost doubling for fy2010, you're kidding right? :singing:
     
  3. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    gotta love the propaganda..................the budget for fiscal 2010 is 500 billion larger than for fiscal 2009......he ain't saving a dime
     
  4. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Size is measured in a variety of ways. Stimulus funding notwithstanding I would argue that reducing the headcount and number of government programs should meet with the right's approval.

    Removing stimulus from the equation and you'd likely (hard to prove) see an overall reduction in the both the physical size of government and the budget.
     
  5. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    problem is that you cant subtract it........its there and that's it

    as for what is likely, you have no clue as to what kind of other new spending would exist if the stimulus was not there.......you have no basis to make that assertion
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2009
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,200
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +316 / 9 / -13


    HAHAHAHAHAHA


    Yeah Obama is reducing governemtn, pass the Kool Aid!!

    :singing::rolleyes:
     
  7. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Size of budget. But what about the size of government?
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,396
    Likes Received:
    262
    Ratings:
    +698 / 7 / -2

    OMFG are people dumb. Wake up will ya. $17 billion in cuts, when just yesterday he looked to add $63 billion more to fight coughs across the globe. Will you just look at what is being given away by the gubmit, and what the budget is moving forward. The saddest part in all this is that whatever George Bush spent, Obama will spend that, and more. Whatever Obama spends, whomever follows, will spend that, and more. It's simply a guarantee. When McLame constantly talked about earmark spending as a means to fiscal sanity, people rightfully pointed out how miniscule an amount it was, in relation to the overall cost of gubmit, or the budget. Well, it was a similar $17 billion IIRC. All of a sudden, that total is wickid pissah man.


    Here you go pal.

    Verizon - News Channel

    Meet the new guy, same as the old guy.
    So much for caring about kids.
     
  9. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    big government on a small budget = good bang for the buck........

    the truth is that as usual, you are trying to spin something into that its not
     
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This is why I had you on ignore. Back you go.
     
  11. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    so this is what the libbies do........spins some ignorance and then plug their ears
     
  12. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Returning this thread to adult conversation, what's been announced is a significant reduction of the number and size of existing programs. So far, new programs, other than what essentially constitutes targeted injections of cash in an economy that badly needs it, have not been introduced.

    So we are getting a significant re-structuring of government, and what would appear to be widespread reduction in waste. By doing this, we've reduced government headcount and moved in a direction where we can "pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks". The pell grant program is an existing program, so there's no significant increase in headcount or infrastructure, but there is an increase in budget. I.e., more money going through it to students. And re-routing money via reorganization to pay for the national parks.

    The largest cuts, of course, ar in defense, as defense is our largest or second largest (depending on how you slice it) budget responsibility, consuming 21% of the budget. Here are the defnse cuts:

    • Recruiting and retention adjustments: $6.24 billion
    • Future combat systems of manned ground vehicles: $2.98 billion
    • F-22 raptor fighter aircraft: $2.9 billion
    • Transformational satellite: $768 million
    • Joint strike fighter alternate engine: $465 million
    Looks sensible to me, especially the F22. Recruiting and retention will help reduce the size of the military as we transition away from the occupation of Iraq.

    So it would appear that this, along with the lesser challenge of getting the cabinet to cut $100 million in spending is plainly responsible government in action, and arguably actual, tangible reductions in its size (headcount/infrastructure) which lasts so long as we allow it based on future budgets.

    Righties will trivialize it, but it's always important to analyze things in a disciplined fashion.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,200
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +316 / 9 / -13

    The Obama budget projection release raised the deficit for his budger by 89B more than 5 times the 17B 'savings' he announced last week.......

    Didn't they know that they were off in there estimates by 89B????????????


    Anyone believe this when he announced his cuts for the suckers????
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,020
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    He can propose all he wants. When it's done get back to me. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>