For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Hooray, Obama Reigns In The Budget By….Adding $100 Billion(?)
Written By : William Teach

So many media outlets are portraying Obama’s supposed budget as a big saver, as him reigning in federal spending. The Politico discusses Obama’s “hard choices.” CBS discusses that this $3.73 budget will somehow reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years, and cuts are deep. The NY Times is, of course, thrilled, and doing their normal high school cheerleader routine. And we have the Washington Post

President Obama will roll out a $3.7 trillion budget blueprint Monday that would trim or terminate more than 200 federal programs next year and make key investments in education, transportation and research in a bid to boost the nation’s economy and reduce record budget deficits.

In other words, he may be trimming in some places, but, he is adding in others. Remember, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget was $3.6 trillion. That jumped from the $3.1 trillion for 2009. Somehow, adding $100 billion is a good thing? And, yes, I, along with most conservatives, were unhappy with the budget during the Bush years, as we watched it increase by $100 billion every year.

Here’s where 1/3 of his “cuts” come from

Obama also would raise hundreds of billions of dollars in fresh revenue, which Republicans adamantly oppose. He would increase taxes on the wealthy by limiting the value of their itemized deductions and by allowing the recently extended George W. Bush-era tax breaks to expire in 2012. He would end subsidies for oil and gas companies, and would eliminate certain tax breaks for corporations that do business overseas. And he assumes that Congress will develop a plan to pay for a $556 billion transportation bill, a measure traditionally funded by increasing the federal tax on gasoline.

So, tax increases. That should make the 2012 elections interesting. If the GOP was wise, they would submit legislation in the next month or so that would make the “Bush tax cuts” permanent, and reduce the corporate tax rate. Yes, they could go and do away with many loopholes, but, all Obama’s tax increases will do will be to drive more employers overseas and keep their money there. Oh, and increasing the cost of living. Obama doesn’t seem to understand that raising fuel prices will increase the cost of most other services and goods.

As far as transportation, looks like he is still on his “everybody(else) needs to ride the rail!” kick. He also wants a ton more funding for teachers, which should make the teachers unions happy. And a nation wide wireless internet network, which would bring high speed to areas that do not have it (because it is too damned expensive for private companies to build out, and it would lose money. So, tax payers will get to foot the bill for Someone Else yet again.)

All in all, he’s cutting from some places (and some of it makes sense, like reducing overlapping programs), but increasing in others. To his pet projects and donors.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

0
  • Anonymous

    This is kind of like the flawed logic of failed dieters: I’ll switch to coke zero which means it will be Ok to eat a whole cheesecake for every meal.

    I’ll cut spending a little in some areas which means I can raise it in others (far exceeding the original cuts) and still somehow trim the deficit.

    Good thing the teachers unions have done such a good job killing math courses in this country or else folks would be outraged.

    • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

      “I’ll switch to coke zero which means it will be Ok to eat a whole cheesecake for every meal.”

      Hah, that takes me back to my teenage years working as a restaurant cashier among other things while saving money for my first car, when I often laughed at people who ordered huge, calorie-laden meals “and a Diet Coke.” Laughed on the inside, of course. Mostly.

      • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

        I remember well in college watching the freshmen girls in the cafeteria eat a salad and some fruit then because they were so good about their meal go get two cookies and put soft serve ice cream between them as a treat. Then they wondered why their butts got so big.

      • Anonymous

        I have diet coke / pepsi with my laden pizza or mchappy meal. The diet cola just tastes better.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, the sugar in regular coke is way too high. It’s disgusting, really.

      • Anonymous

        I have diet coke / pepsi with my laden pizza or mchappy meal. The diet cola just tastes better.

    • Joebritton

      Flawed logic? Here’s your flawed logic:

      Today, we’ll witness the Obama administration offer the country a budget rife with compromise – a budget that targets the least among us to pay for the mistakes of the banks and the greed of the corporate elite, who pledge allegiance only to the stock market.

      Heating oil subsidies for the poorest people in the US will be cut back, despite the unprecedented winter we’re still enduring. Despite bipartisan agreement among voters that the military budget should be slashed, it won’t be touched. Social Security recipients did not receive even a tiny increase last year, but the Pentagon’s budget will continue to rise with the rate of inflation.

      Truthout email.

      • Anonymous

        If that was meant as a rebuttal, well talk about failed.

      • Anonymous

        If that was meant as a rebuttal, well talk about failed.

      • Anonymous

        So . . . Obama is a terrible president.

        I feel so chastised.

      • Anonymous

        why is the winter unprecedented if the Earth is warming?

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

    It’s more obvious than ever that our federal government is an addict. And like any addict, there’s no way to sugar-coat the truth – stopping means just that – stopping. You can play all the “I’m going to cut down slowly” games you like, but in the end, you’re still facing the same truth – stopping means stopping. If you’re still adding to the debt through annual deficits, you’re spending too much.

    The GOP has been touting $100B in cuts, but on a budget of $3.6T, that’s less than a 3% cut. In the face of the staggering amounts of debt we’ve accumulated over the years, and the annual deficits we’ve been running, it’s just not enough to do the job. We need to cut more deeply. We need to increase tax revenues. Both will be painful.

    We can debate between across the board cuts versus targeted eliminations of whole departments and divisions; taxing “the rich” more versus simply eliminating the credits and rebates which allow almost half of our population to effectively not pay any tax, but in the end, the economic realities of our situation are such that we need to balance our budget as quickly as we can before we fade into the obscurity of history.

    • abcxyz

      Martin,

      Even a thousand mile journey begins with a single step. The key is to keep taking the steps. Even an addict cannot kick the habit in a day. From what I read, the new members of House (not sure whether it was just the R’s or both D’s and R’s) fought for bigger cuts (must have been just the R’s :)) while the old entrenched ‘leadership’ was resistant. A perfect reason why we need term limits on these bozos.

      • http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

        Oh, I agree that the long journey begins with a single step. But that single step has to amount to more than a 2.78% cut. In my estimation, that falls beneath what people call a “just noticeable difference”.

        Imagine trying to stop your pack-a-day habit by trimming .556 of a cigarette from your daily routine – that’s a 2.78% reduction. Would you even notice such a cut? And what do you think the chances of actually succeeding at quitting would be if you continued making minuscule cuts like that? Or let’s say you’re trying to get your own personal spending under control and you decide to take 2.78% out of your weekly “pocket cash” of $100 – would you really even notice that missing $2.78?

        I agree there might be some symbolic value to making $100B in cuts, but we’re fast approaching the day when symbols aren’t enough. At the rate of adding ~$1.5T to the national debt every year, this problem is multiplying geometrically against us because the debt service eats up an ever-increasing percentage of our revenue. There is a tipping point at which we’ll never be able to climb out of our indebtedness – we won’t even be able to service our existing debt. Which is why more drastic action needs to be taken now.

        I completely agree that term limits might help curb some of the pork and entitlement spending since those are the basic units of currency with which politicians seek to remain in office. If they had no hope of remaining in office, they’d be less prone to spend our money that we don’t have .

  • degeneratevern

    All of you Teabaggers running around stomping little women, like that Ron Paul thug in Kentucky. I mean Ron Paul? What were ya’ll thankin down there in Kentucky? Or what were ya’ll drankin? I mean Ron Paul in the United States Senate? Well, whatever ! Wasn’t it the Rolling Stones, who had the line? “It might just be a lunatic you’re looking for”.
    Speaking of lunatics, how about that John Boner? Crying like a jilted bride after the election? Dude must be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And this guy is second in the line of secession for the presidency. We survived two terms of Richard Nixon and two terms of George Dubya, and now we have to go through this? The Republicans are always crying. Now they’re crying about taxes. The line , they’re running today is, we have to keep taxes low on the rich to create jobs.
    Create jobs, my ass! They’re creating jobs alright. They’re creating jobs in India, Vietnam, and China.’ Take the money and run!!
    Now I have a beef on taxes. It has to do with the I.R.S. rules on racetrack winnings. I go to the racetrack day after day and lose my money on the pick 4. Then one day,the planets are all lined up, and the damn thing comes in, and I finally make a little score. I go to the window to get my money and suddenly find I have a partner; the government. They want a piece. Now there’s something to cry about. Where the hell were my partners, last week, when I needed a sawbuck, to get back in action.

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      A lot of words and no facts. you could have just said ” Rethuglicans are wrong” and sounded less stupid.

    • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

      Wow, little to no content. Well, I guess it’s a good thing that only John can whack the comments, otherwise yours would be gone. But, hey, it’s good that everyone else can see your unhinged comment. All insult, no content.

      BTW, it was Billy Joel who sang that line in “You May Be Right”, so, on even that you completely blew it.

      • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

        “BTW, it was Billy Joel who sang that line in “You May Be Right”, so, on even that you completely blew it. ”

        Add music to the long list of subjects on which Liberals are clueless, along with history, math, politics, science of all types, psychology…

        • degeneratevern

          Never got into those gay groups. Elton John, Billy Joel, Flock uf Seagulls, etc.

          • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

            Dude. Stop digging.

          • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

            Dude. Stop digging.

          • Anonymous

            Elton John is not a group. Billy Joel is not a group.
            I’m not surprised your knowledge on Flock “uf” Seagulls is accurate.

          • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

            So, not only are you an idiot, but, a homophobe as well, degen?

    • abcxyz

      The reason the government didn’t help you on your losing bets is that you were betting small. If you were betting billions, like the folks at AIG, Goldman, Citi, etc…, the situation would have been reversed. You would have had a partner when your bets lost and low taxes when they won.

      This is your free lesson for the year. Go big or go home.

  • Joetote

    While the President is feeding us his line of garbage as to cutting spending, it came to my attention yesterday that the FED is considering a QE3 package as the 1.2 trillion dollars of worthless money they’ve already printed hasn’t done what they though it would. All of the cuts iin the world are not going to offset the hyper inflation and the costs that come with printing worthless money. M! has grown 15.2% in less than 3 months and all of that is unbacked paper!

    • abcxyz

      The entire money supply of US is unbacked paper, Joe. Where have you been the last 40 years? :)

  • degeneratevern

    By George! I think you got it!

  • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

    “He would increase taxes on the wealthy …”

    …thereby decreasing the amount of money they have to invest in businesses and spend on material goods — when they even pay the higher tax on income they can’t hide. How incredibly stupid does one have to be to be taken in by this class warfare claptrap?

    • Joebritton

      Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest.

      I agree that people who are truly entrepreneurs and risk money, should get a lower tax rate. But the majority of the wealthy don’t do that. They just live off of stock dividends and bonds, and it just does not matter whether a stock costs one dollar or a hundred dollars when purchased, it does not increase investment.

      It’s a bogus assumption about the wealthy.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

        What are securities, you idiot!

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

          Since you aren’t going to reply, let me help you out. Securities are investment vehicles that help a company or government entity raise money to expand. In return, the loaner of the money gets a return on use of the funds.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

        What are securities, you idiot!

      • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

        “Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest … They just live off of stock dividends and bonds”

        Holy crap. Unless you have visions of them stuffing $1000 bills in their mattresses, that’s investing. Banks loan that money out to those who need it. Companies use that money to expand, or fund R&D. Finance is on top of the long list of things Liberals don’t understand.

      • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

        “Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest … They just live off of stock dividends and bonds”

        Holy crap. Unless you have visions of them stuffing $1000 bills in their mattresses, that’s investing. Banks loan that money out to those who need it. Companies use that money to expand, or fund R&D. Finance is on top of the long list of things Liberals don’t understand.

      • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

        Dude, seriously, you are so totally clueless about wealth and the wealthy. Here’s a hint: Gold Key comics about Scrooge McDuck are not accurate.

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        “Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest. ”

        It’s a bogus assumption about the wealthy.

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        “Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest. ”

        It’s a bogus assumption about the wealthy.

      • Anonymous

        proof

      • Anonymous

        Most of the wealthy don’t invest but stash their cash away in safe securities, where they live off the interest.

        Yes. THAT IS WHAT INVESTMENT IS.

        Thank you for proving once and for all that you are a fucking idiot.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    This was my problem with his supposedly great State of the Union speech. It was “We have to cut spending, we have to get the deficit down… and here’s the new, extra spending I promise.” To be fair, he’s hardly the first president to do this. Clinton and both Bushes did the same thing every year.

  • Joebritton

    Time to stop looking the other way and face reality. Why, since Reagan, have budget deficits and the National Debt increased so dramatically to the point where Boner just admitted, “we are broke?” At the same time, wealth and income inequality increased to the point where we can again talk about 1929 or the era of the “robber barons?”

    Republicans. Time to face reality.

    Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

    We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore.

    For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it.

    The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/01/raise-my-taxes-mr-president.html

    So please stop all of this malarkey. We know why we are in trouble, deep trouble, and you want us to continue this path.

    I read where Obama is cutting fuel subsidies for the elderly and poor. Is that good? And please don’t tell me: let them burn garbage from the dumpsters, what they don’t eat.

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      “The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit”

      Lie!

      “We know why we are in trouble, deep trouble,”

      Yes because politicians think we can spend our way out of debt, not because taxes are low or high.

    • Anonymous

      So please stop all of this malarkey.

      Heh. Physician, heal thyself.

  • Anonymous

    “Obama budget projects record $1.6 trillion deficit” and “the budget contains as much as $1.5 trillion in hikes over ten years”

    Another irresponsible, out-of-control, lunatic-left d-crat socialist spending and taxing atrocity. (Did the chinese communists help write his ?)

    It should be DOA in the House of Representatives, who must produce a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE budget that massively cuts spending, agencies, departments and personnel of the federal government.

  • Joebritton

    Has anyone begun to ask: why do we, as Republicans, have financial problems. Afterall, the nation has been operating under Republican economics for the past 30 years. And what Obama is facing today is the cumulative result of Republican economic polcy for that length of time.

    And now you still want to tell us how we should run our fiscal business? Sorry, not listening.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

      OMG, you are either blatantly dumb or blatantly miss leading.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

      OMG, you are either blatantly dumb or blatantly miss leading.

    • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

      “Afterall, the nation has been operating under Republican economics for the past 30 years.”

      What nation would that be? Bullshitistan?

    • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

      “Afterall, the nation has been operating under Republican economics for the past 30 years.”

      What nation would that be? Bullshitistan?

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, the last 30 years has just been devastating hasn’t it?

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, the last 30 years has just been devastating hasn’t it?

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      Since 1981 Dems have controlled the House 18 years(only Dems ever had a supermajority), the Senate 14 yrs(and the reps never had a supermajority), and the Presidency 10. The House controls the budget, so whose economics have we suffered under?

      http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

      • D-Vega

        both.

        • Anonymous

          So “the nation has been operating under Republican economics for the past 30 years.” is a lie?

        • Anonymous

          Since January 2007, you know, when the economy started crashing, the left has controlled the purse strings.

        • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

          I agree. Too bad we haven’t tried conservative economics yet.

          • Anonymous

            I think we need to start expressing that just because we had republican presidents, we did not have conservative leadership.

            I just worry that it is too late to save the country from financial collapse.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

          Me, “Is your car a v6 or a v8?”

          You, “both.”

    • Anonymous

      So does that mean the Republicans get credit for everything good that has happened in the past 30 years?

      Like your iphone? Thank Reagan.

    • Anonymous

      flagged for lying, you are not a Republican. And your whole post is feces.

    • Anonymous

      So you’re saying that for 30 years “Republican economics” worked just fine, then all of a sudden everything went to shit, and it just happened to coincide with Obama’s presidency.

      Could you possibly be more blatant in your attempts to obscure Obama’s failures?

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info