PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs


BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 08:54 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html

<NYT_HEADLINE type=" " version="1.0">Obama Seeks Freeze on Many Domestic Programs </NYT_HEADLINE>

<NYT_BYLINE type=" " version="1.0">By JACKIE CALMES (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jackie_calmes/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>WASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday.

The officials said the proposal would be a major component both of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of_the_union_message_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) on Wednesday and of the budget he will send to Congress on Monday for the fiscal year that begins in October.
The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, from air traffic control and farm subsidies to education, nutrition and national parks.

But it would exempt the budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier): Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and Social Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

The payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit: The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional debt the government is expected to accumulate over that time.

The initiative holds political risks as well as potential benefits. Because Mr. Obama plans to exempt military spending while leaving many popular domestic programs vulnerable, his move is certain to further anger liberals in his party. Senior Democrats in Congress are already upset by the possible collapse of health care legislation and the troop buildup in Afghanistan, among other things.

But it would signal to voters, Wall Street and other nations that Mr. Obama is willing to make some tough decisions at a time when the deficit and the national debt, in the view of some economists, have reached levels that undermine the nation’s long-term prosperity. Perceptions that government spending is out of control have contributed to Mr. Obama’s loss of support among independent voters, and concern about the government’s fiscal health could put upward pressure on the interest rates the United States has to pay to borrow money from investors and nations, especially China, that have been financing Washington’s budget deficit.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would have to be agreed to by the House and Senate, and it is not clear how much support he will get in an election year when the political appeal of greater fiscal responsibility will be vying with the pressure to provide voters with more and better services. The administration officials said the portion of the budget they have singled out — $447 billion in domestic programs — amounts to a relatively small share, about one-sixth, of the overall federal budget.

But given the raft of agencies and programs within that slice, the reductions will mean painful reductions that will be fought by numerous lobbies and constituent groups. And not all programs will be frozen, the administration officials said; many will be cut well below a freeze or eliminated to protect programs that are higher priorities for the administration in areas like education, energy, the environment and health.
The balancing act of picking winners and losers was evident on Monday at the White House. Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) outlined a number of new proposals that will be in the budget to help the middle class. They cover issues including child care, student loans (http://www.nytimes.com/info/student-loans/?inline=nyt-classifier) and retirement savings.

Administration officials also are working with Congress on roughly $150 billion in additional stimulus spending and tax cuts to spur job creation. But much of that spending would be authorized in the current fiscal year, the administration officials said, so it would not be affected by the proposed freeze that would take effect in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
It is the growth in the so-called entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that is the major factor behind projections of unsustainably high deficits, due to rapidly rising health costs and an aging population.

But one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have larger symbolic value. That spending includes lawmakers’ earmarks for parochial projects, and only when the public believes such perceived waste is being wrung out will they be willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs, the official said.

“By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget,” the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.
The administration officials did not identify which programs Mr. Obama would cut or eliminate, but said that information would be in the budget next week. For the coming fiscal year, the reductions would be $10 billion to $15 billion, they said. Last year Mr. Obama proposed to cut a similar amount — $11.5 billion — and Congress approved about three-fifths of that, the officials said.

The federal government’s discretionary domestic spending has grown about 5 percent on average since 1993, according to the administration. It spiked to about 27 percent between 2008 and 2009, however, because of the recession (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_and_depression/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). The sudden increase reflected both the first outlays from the $787 billion stimulus package (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) as well as automatic spending for unemployment compensation and food stamps that is triggered during an economic downturn.
The freeze that Mr. Obama will propose for the fiscal years 2011 through 2013 actually means a cut in real terms, since the affected spending would not keep pace with inflation.

According to the administration, by 2015 that share of the federal budget will be at its lowest level in a half-century relative to the size of the economy.

“A lot of our caucus won’t like it but I don’t think we have any choice,” said an adviser to Congressional Democratic leaders, who would only speak on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations. “After Massachusetts and all the polls about independents abandoning us for being fiscally irresponsible, we can’t afford to be spending more than Obama.”
While the Democrats’ unexpected loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election last week gave new impetus to administration efforts to tackle the deficit, those efforts actually have been under way since last fall, when officials began early work on the 2011 budget.

Mr. Obama’s budget director, Peter R. Orszag (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/peter_orszag/index.html?inline=nyt-per), initially directed Cabinet secretaries and agency heads to propose alternative budgets — one with a freeze and another that cut spending by 5 percent. Months of internal arguments and appeals followed.

The president, in his State of the Union address, also will propose to create by executive order a bipartisan commission to reduce the debt — assuming the Senate on Tuesday defeats a bill to establish such a panel by law. The presidential commission, like the one proposed in the Senate, would be required to produce a package of entitlement savings and tax increases by December for Congress to vote on.

<NYT_AUTHOR_ID>David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting from Washington.

petegz28
01-25-2010, 09:09 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. How about cutting out the 5-star trips Congress takes all over the fucking world?

patteeu
01-25-2010, 09:10 PM
But it would exempt the budgets for ... the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)

The problem. Not addressed.

petegz28
01-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Administration officials also are working with Congress on roughly $150 billion in additional stimulus spending and tax cuts to spur job creation. But much of that spending would be authorized in the current fiscal year, the administration officials said, so it would not be affected by the proposed freeze that would take effect in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1

So if we spend it this year then it won't count. LMAO

petegz28
01-25-2010, 09:13 PM
For the coming fiscal year, the reductions would be $10 billion to $15 billion, they said. Last year Mr. Obama proposed to cut a similar amount — $11.5 billion — and Congress approved about three-fifths of that, the officials said.

WOW! All of 1.25% of only the Stimulus Bill alone. So in other words, the cuts won't amount to jack.

wild1
01-25-2010, 09:23 PM
WOW! All of 1.25% of only the Stimulus Bill alone. So in other words, the cuts won't amount to jack.

It's a showpiece for people who aren't really paying attention.

Probably the sole reason is that the State of the Union is in two days. Does anyone think he would have put us on the hook for $5 trillion+ if he cared about the budget?

Donger
01-25-2010, 09:24 PM
So Obama is now against his own health care plan? My, what a difference one little special election makes...

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 10:53 PM
The problem. Not addressed.I agree. Without entitlement reform deficit reduction will be too hard and painful to do. But, entitlement reform will be very painful politically. It will only be able to be done with true bi=partisanship. Both parties share the bame and praise equally. Thats the only political cover available.

Pioli Zombie
01-25-2010, 10:58 PM
Mr Freezemeister.
Posted via Mobile Device

Stinger
01-26-2010, 01:01 AM
The HATCHET IS OUT!!!!!!!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pyr2noZ57Ww&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pyr2noZ57Ww&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It didn't take long for the critics to come out in force -- and on YouTube -- against the Obama administration's just-leaked plan to propose a three-year freeze in discretionary, "non-security" spending as part of the upcoming budget.

Some Democrats scoffed at the idea, calling it the wrong approach during a time of deep economic recession. Republicans depicted it as a political gambit destined to be shot down by a non-compliant Congress.

One particularly tough attack, however, was delivered in Obama's own words -- in the form of a video compilation showing the president scoffing at just such a proposal in three successive presidential campaign debates. The video was posted quickly on YouTube.

"The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are underfunded," Obama says in his first debate against Republican candidate John McCain, who was pushing a spending freeze.

"That is an example of an unfair burden sharing," Obama says of McCain's proposal in the second debate. "That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget. I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us like myself and Senator McCain who don't need help aren't getting it. That is how we make sure that everybody is willing to make a few sacrifices."

"It sounds good," Obama says of the proposal during the third debate. "It is proposed periodically. It doesn't happen. And in fact an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet and we do need a scalpel because there are some programs that don't work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded and I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work."

The administration's argument that it is not backtracking on a campaign pledge seems likely to rest on the use of the term "across-the-board." Obama's proposed cap for discretionary, non-defense spending would allow for some agencies and programs to get additional funding, on the condition that it comes from another agency.

"This is not a blunt, across-the-board freeze," said a senior administration official. "Some agencies will go up, others will go down; but in aggregate for those non-security agencies the total will remain constant."

As for the political dynamics, they clearly have changed since the campaign. Still stinging from the Democratic Party's loss of Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, the White House is apparently choosing to respond to a rise in anti-government sentiment by making a new show of commitment to fiscal discipline.

The president, a senior adviser said, made the decision to propose the spending freeze after consultation with many advisers, in which he came to the conclusion that the government "can't spend more money than it has; that it has to make some decisions about what is vital."

"Do I think this is going to win us lots of kudos among some on Capitol Hill?" the official added. "No."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/obama-mccain-spending-freeze-video_n_436340.html

Taco John
01-26-2010, 01:46 AM
The benefit of understanding objectivism is that when a politician makes a move like this, the first thing I look at is how it benefits him personally. The rest is really just peripheral. I mean, it affects us - but it's not like that's why this move is being made at this point in time. This is about Obama's needs, not ours. Not that he's any different than any president. They've got to be strategic. It comes with the territory.

My first reaction to this news - examining it from a political strategy angle - is that it is actually a clever move. I believe they've had this little trick up their sleeves for some time, but didn't expect to have to use it until AFTER November. They expected to ride wins in health care and environment into November, and they're coming up craps in both. Obama needs a major win and he needs it yesterday. Enter this piece of legislation as the State of the Union draws neigh.

Here is why I think it's a smart strategy for him: when it passes, it will pass with bi-partisan colors. The lefties will HOWL about this and the damage it will do. It really is a akin to throwing holy water on vampires. But these far lefties are nothing but a political token to Obama that he's cashing in. He knows that by turning his back on them, he'll be able to play better towards the center. They'll moan about the economy and the plight of the down-trodden, but mostly they'll be played out to look like spending fools who think the money well is bottom-less.

Republicans are going to have a difficult time communicating criticism over this. Any that try to will end up looking very petty. I agree wholeheartedly with what patteeu said ("The problem. Not addressed."), but I think that message will be a losing one because when they demand more cuts it will play out like they're trying to take social security checks away from grandma and grandpa.

All in all, this is a very solid chess move. It makes him look like he's reaching a hand to the "tea party" folks and working to build coalitions. Many of the Kotter types this nation will be fooled by it, and I expect Obama's approval/popularity ratings to jump between now and November somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 12 points, putting him over the 50% mark. That should provide some benefit for them, as they head back to the drawing board on health care and the environment for the second semester of this term.

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 02:25 AM
The problem. Not addressed.

Exactly.

Instead of almost doubling the debt during his tenure Obama's great plan will save about 3% of the projected $9,000,000,000,000.00 his administration is projecting to add to the debt.

This is a joke. Obama isn't fixing the problem. He's grasping at a political "storyline" for November and nothing more. All you need to do is ask this question of President Fail: "After you enact your deficit-reduction spending freeze what will your projected debt be after ten years?"

Don't hold your breath for a real answer.

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 05:19 AM
Only one year in and the jackass is already grasping for straws.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lies.jpg

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 06:57 AM
The freeze is a positive step in the right direction, but far too small to be of any real significance.

All I really care about is that the election in Massachusetts seems to have sent a clear signal about deficit spending and the need to rein it in. While the President seems to have gotten the message, he's deferring the pain, and Congress doesn't seem to have figured it out.

If the Republicans run HEAVY on a deficit/debt platform, they might even get my vote. Unfortunately, we don't have any particular reason to actually TAKE the painful setps that are necessary. And that's just it -- they will be painful, and politicans in America are especially bad at making painful choices.

InChiefsHell
01-26-2010, 07:49 AM
Heh. It took Barry a year to focus on the debt and spending...after an orgy of spending and Health Care bullshit. Priorities Barry, priorities.

The Republicans should applaud this move and say that they are glad that the President is finally listening to what they have been trying to say all year. Then they need to challenge the President to work harder with them to cut the deficit further by making REAL cuts to spending and spurring the economy with tax cuts. They can counter this move and it will be a win\win for them and the Pres ala Bill Clinton in the 90's after the Repubs took over Congress.

This will be interesting.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 07:53 AM
Heh. It took Barry a year to focus on the debt and spending...after an orgy of spending and Health Care bullshit. Priorities Barry, priorities.

You realize he came into office during a recession yes? And that standard economic wisdom (agree with it or not) is not to raise taxes or cut spending under such circumstances?

I note, of course, that the Republicans did not much different during their years in power to fix in the deficit. Just the opposite, actually...

The Republicans should applaud this move and say that they are glad that the President is finally listening to what they have been trying to say all year. Then they need to challenge the President to work harder with them to cut the deficit further by making REAL cuts to spending and spurring the economy with tax cuts. They can counter this move and it will be a win\win for them and the Pres ala Bill Clinton in the 90's after the Repubs took over Congress.

This will be interesting.

I'd agree that would be the right response.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 08:00 AM
You realize he came into office during a recession yes? And that standard economic wisdom (agree with it or not) is not to raise taxes or cut spending under such circumstances?

I note, of course, that the Republicans did not much different during their years in power to fix in the deficit. Just the opposite, actually...



I'd agree that would be the right response.
The Republicans will find a way to say no.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2010, 08:02 AM
Its a great spin job by the WH. The problem is it amounts to just fluff. They assume no one will notice. Sadly, they still assume the public will buy anything this guy says. His approvals will continue to drop as long as he underestimates the voter.

Hydrae
01-26-2010, 08:02 AM
I believe the saying it something along the lines of "Doesn't do much good to close the barn door after the cows have already gotten out."

HonestChieffan
01-26-2010, 08:08 AM
The Republicans will find a way to say no.

How? The democrats have commanding control of the house, still control the Senate, and have the whitehouse?

The idea that somehow the minority can say no is a myth and a talking point whenever the democrats dont agree within the party and they fail to pass something.

InChiefsHell
01-26-2010, 08:13 AM
You realize he came into office during a recession yes?

Yes, I seem to recall him mentioning that...about 750 thousand times...give or take...


And that standard economic wisdom (agree with it or not) is not to raise taxes or cut spending under such circumstances?

But cutting taxes is a good thing. Seems to me that if Barry tackles the economy FIRST, he'd have been in much better shape to get what he wanted with Health Care.


I note, of course, that the Republicans did not much different during their years in power to fix in the deficit. Just the opposite, actually...

Yep, but it has grown exponentially under Barry. I mean the Republicans sucked, but Barry has sucked even harder. 8 years of debt from Bush is less that the amount of debt that Barry has accrued THIS YEAR.

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 08:16 AM
You realize he came into office during a recession yes? And that standard economic wisdom (agree with it or not) is not to raise taxes or cut spending under such circumstances?



The Republicans will find a way to say no.

Letters: U.S. woes can't be cured overnight
Philadelphia Daily News

AYEAR AGO, if we'd read that employers were hiring again, that health-care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly was a nice place to take kids, we'd have known we were being lied to. We knew the problems President Obama inherited wouldn't go away overnight.
During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of empires, and wouldn't be an easy venture.

Candidate Obama didn't feed us happy talk, which is why we elected him. He never said America could solve our health-care, economic and security problems without raising the deficit. He talked of hard choices, of government taking painful and contentious first steps toward fixing problems that can't be left for another day.

Right after the election, we seemed to grasp this. We understood that companies would be happy to squeeze more work out of frightened employees, and would be slow to hire.

We understood that the banks were lying when they said they'd share their recovery. That a national consensus on health care wouldn't come easily. Candidate Obama never claimed that his proposed solutions would work flawlessly right out of the box, and we respected him for that.

Today, the president is being attacked as if he'd promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Ellie Light

Philadelphia

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 08:23 AM
How? The democrats have commanding control of the house, still control the Senate, and have the whitehouse?

The idea that somehow the minority can say no is a myth and a talking point whenever the democrats dont agree within the party and they fail to pass something.I agree with some posters here that its a deflection of the root cause but it's still a step in the right direction.

The long term root cause for deficits will remain the entitlements. Which is why driving down the health care costs was so important. Entitlements are a 3rd rail that no politican on either side of the aisle dares to touch.

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 08:25 AM
Spending freeze? All of a sudden its 2010 and McCain actually did win the election.ROFL

I laugh thinking back to the summer when the administration, MSM, and some of the left on this board scoffed and looked down their noses at the tea party goers.

Suck it bit$hes. You look really really stupid.

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 08:25 AM
Letters: U.S. woes can't be cured overnight
Des Moines Daily News

AYEAR AGO, if we'd read that employers were hiring again, that health-care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly was a nice place to take kids, we'd have known we were being lied to. We knew the problems President Obama inherited wouldn't go away overnight.
During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of empires, and wouldn't be an easy venture.

Candidate Obama didn't feed us happy talk, which is why we elected him. He never said America could solve our health-care, economic and security problems without raising the deficit. He talked of hard choices, of government taking painful and contentious first steps toward fixing problems that can't be left for another day.

Right after the election, we seemed to grasp this. We understood that companies would be happy to squeeze more work out of frightened employees, and would be slow to hire.

We understood that the banks were lying when they said they'd share their recovery. That a national consensus on health care wouldn't come easily. Candidate Obama never claimed that his proposed solutions would work flawlessly right out of the box, and we respected him for that.

Today, the president is being attacked as if he'd promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Ellie Light

Des Moines

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:25 AM
I agree with some posters here that its a deflection of the root cause but it's still a step in the right direction.

The long term root cause for deficits will remain the entitlements. Which is why driving down the health care costs was so important. Entitlements are a 3rd rail that no politican on either side of the aisle dares to touch.

Yep. Good luck trying to cut Medicare when 80 million baby boomers are going to start using it in less than 5 years. It is financially and politically impossible...same with SS.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2010, 08:28 AM
Fashion for the O-followers

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tin_foil_hat.jpg

Chief Henry
01-26-2010, 08:32 AM
It's a showpiece for people who aren't really paying attention.

Probably the sole reason is that the State of the Union is in two days. Does anyone think he would have put us on the hook for $5 trillion+ if he cared about the budget?

This

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 08:33 AM
Letters: U.S. woes can't be cured overnight
Newark Star Ledger

AYEAR AGO, if we'd read that employers were hiring again, that health-care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly was a nice place to take kids, we'd have known we were being lied to. We knew the problems President Obama inherited wouldn't go away overnight.
During his campaign, Obama clearly said that an economy that took eight years to break couldn't be fixed in a year, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of empires, and wouldn't be an easy venture.

Candidate Obama didn't feed us happy talk, which is why we elected him. He never said America could solve our health-care, economic and security problems without raising the deficit. He talked of hard choices, of government taking painful and contentious first steps toward fixing problems that can't be left for another day.

Right after the election, we seemed to grasp this. We understood that companies would be happy to squeeze more work out of frightened employees, and would be slow to hire.

We understood that the banks were lying when they said they'd share their recovery. That a national consensus on health care wouldn't come easily. Candidate Obama never claimed that his proposed solutions would work flawlessly right out of the box, and we respected him for that.

Today, the president is being attacked as if he'd promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

Ellie Light

Newark

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:35 AM
You can post your silly pictures hcf but I would like to see a presidential candidate run on cutting medicare and SS. They would get laughed out of the country.

Don't ever forget it was the Republicans that all you people voted for passing a $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 08:39 AM
You can post your silly pictures hcf but I would like to see a presidential candidate run on cutting medicare and SS. They would get laughed out of the country.

Don't ever forget it was the Republicans that all you people voted for passing a $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill.That was paid for with borrowed Chinese money.

Donger
01-26-2010, 08:41 AM
Entitlements are a 3rd rail that no politican on either side of the aisle dares to touch.

And that is the biggest reason why I oppose government intervention and control of health care.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:45 AM
And that is the biggest reason why I oppose government intervention and control of health care.

It is a little too late for that

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 08:46 AM
And that is the biggest reason why I oppose government intervention and control of health care.But yet, without bringing down the cost of health care we have no realistic long term chance of balancing the budget.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:54 AM
But yet, without bringing down the cost of health care we have no realistic long term chance of balancing the budget.

I have given up on the dream of bringing down the cost of health care. I don't think it will ever happen in fact I think costs are just going to keep going up because of the advances of medicine.

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:01 AM
It is a little too late for that

Huh?

Hydrae
01-26-2010, 09:02 AM
But yet, without bringing down the cost of health care we have no realistic long term chance of balancing the budget.

Maybe I am being thickheaded here but I fail to see how my medical costs affect the amount of money the government is spending on entitilements and the like.

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:04 AM
But yet, without bringing down the cost of health care we have no realistic long term chance of balancing the budget.

I don't believe that for a second. You think that we have such massive deficits (and national debt) because of health care costs?

No, it's because retarded politicians like to spend vastly more money than they take in tax revenue.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:05 AM
Huh?

hello Medicare. You need to swim back across the ocean

patteeu
01-26-2010, 09:06 AM
Yep, but it has grown exponentially under Barry. I mean the Republicans sucked, but Barry has sucked even harder. 8 years of debt from Bush is less that the amount of debt that Barry has accrued THIS YEAR.

It's the difference between a mosquito and a vampire.

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:08 AM
hello Medicare. You need to swim back across the ocean

Oh, is that government-run health care program expensive or something?

Please explain to me me why private health care costs add to the deficit, and then we'll talk.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Oh, is that government-run health care program expensive or something?

Please explain to me me why private health care costs add to the deficit, and then we'll talk.

Of course it is expensive. I don't know that private health care costs add to the decifict but we all know that the uninsured add to the deficit since they all go to the ER so the government pays for it.

oldandslow
01-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Spending freeze? All of a sudden its 2010 and McCain actually did win the election.ROFL

I laugh thinking back to the summer when the administration, MSM, and some of the left on this board scoffed and looked down their noses at the tea party goers.

Suck it bit$hes. You look really really stupid.

Yep...and I am the first to admit it. I was stupid.

I am not a tea party fan, but Obama has no shame...no loyalty to those who elected him...

He is going to adopt a spending freeze AFTER he gave bazzillions to the financial pimps he works for.

Stick one in your cap mlyonsd. You were 100% right about him and I was 100% wrong. He is a much larger political whore than Clinton ever thought about being.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2010, 09:14 AM
I have given up on the dream of bringing down the cost of health care. I don't think it will ever happen in fact I think costs are just going to keep going up because of the advances of medicine.

those medical advances are always the bad ones. Was a lot cheaper before these damn drugs were invented.

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:15 AM
Of course it is expensive. I don't know that private health care costs add to the decifict but we all know that the uninsured add to the deficit since they all go to the ER so the government pays for it.

WTF? Do you even know what "deficit" means with respect to our budget?

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:17 AM
those medical advances are always the bad ones. Was a lot cheaper before these damn drugs were invented.

I am not saying its bad at all just that the costs are never going to go down.

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 09:20 AM
Yep...and I am the first to admit it. I was stupid.

I am not a tea party fan, but Obama has no shame...no loyalty to those who elected him...

He is going to adopt a spending freeze AFTER he gave bazzillions to the financial pimps he works for.

Stick one in your cap mlyonsd. You were 100% right about him and I was 100% wrong. He is a much larger political whore than Clinton ever thought about being.

My little rant wasn't aimed at you. You're a prinicpled guy and admit when bamboozled.

I was tricked too for a while. At one point in 2007 I actually thought Obama might be different. Primarily because he had a chance to be, secondly because he seemed sincere. He really did have a chance to change Washington but as it turned out he's just another politician.

And FTR, I don't see any republican on the horizon that lives up to the expectations I thought Obama had.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:23 AM
WTF? Do you even know what "deficit" means with respect to our budget?

How are we paying for the 35-40 million uninsured? Doesn't Medicaid add to the deficit?

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:26 AM
How are we paying for the 35-40 million uninsured? Doesn't Medicaid add to the deficit?

I'm not arguing that bloated government-run health care programs don't add to the deficit. I'm arguing that my and other's PRIVATE health care costs don't add to the deficit.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:29 AM
I'm not arguing that bloated government-run health care programs don't add to the deficit. I'm arguing that my and other's PRIVATE health care costs don't add to the deficit.

I didn't say private does. Go back and read it again.

BTW the uninsured costs the government $86 billion a year.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:43 AM
My little rant wasn't aimed at you. You're a prinicpled guy and admit when bamboozled.

I was tricked too for a while. At one point in 2007 I actually thought Obama might be different. Primarily because he had a chance to be, secondly because he seemed sincere. He really did have a chance to change Washington but as it turned out he's just another politician.

And FTR, I don't see any republican on the horizon that lives up to the expectations I thought Obama had.

I think it is too early to say one way or another about Obama and I am not ready to give up on him after 1 year or pass any judgments.

There is alot of people in the Lounge that say the same thing about Pioli\Haley and I am not ready to give up on them either.

He hasn't been perfect and he has made alot of mistakes but he still has a chance to turn it around.

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 09:44 AM
The freeze is a positive step in the right direction, but far too small to be of any real significance.

All I really care about is that the election in Massachusetts seems to have sent a clear signal about deficit spending and the need to rein it in. While the President seems to have gotten the message, he's deferring the pain, and Congress doesn't seem to have figured it out.

If the Republicans run HEAVY on a deficit/debt platform, they might even get my vote. Unfortunately, we don't have any particular reason to actually TAKE the painful setps that are necessary. And that's just it -- they will be painful, and politicans in America are especially bad at making painful choices.

Not really sure how you can equate the MA senate election results with any changes from Camp Obama. This proposal promises the same gerrymandered exclusions (it really only "freezes" growth from a limited portion of the budget and one you can bet won't hurt the Dems special interests). And if Obama had REALLY gotten the message from MA he wouldn't still be trying to ram his $2 trillion health care mandates down our throats.

It's a nice sound bite, but like everything Obama does it is not something he believes in and it won't fix the problem. It's just more political games.

Donger
01-26-2010, 09:48 AM
I didn't say private does. Go back and read it again.

BTW the uninsured costs the government $86 billion a year.

Good, then we don't disagree.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:49 AM
Not really sure how you can equate the MA senate election results with any changes from Camp Obama. This proposal promises the same gerrymandered exclusions (it really only "freezes" growth from a limited portion of the budget and one you can bet won't hurt the Dems special interests). And if Obama had REALLY gotten the message from MA he wouldn't still be trying to ram his $2 trillion health care mandates down our throats.

It's a nice sound bite, but like everything Obama does it is not something he believes in and it won't fix the problem. It's just more political games.

If he sticks to what programs they aren't freezing then I don't know what the problem is. You obviously can't freeze spending on defense and homeland security while we are in a war and you can't freeze Medicare or SS when alot of baby boomers are starting to join the ranks.

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 09:50 AM
You can post your silly pictures hcf but I would like to see a presidential candidate run on cutting medicare and SS. They would get laughed out of the country.

Don't ever forget it was the Republicans that all you people voted for passing a $1.2 trillion dollar Medicare bill.

Yep. That was stupid too.

And the politicians won't address entitlements, you're right. But one day we're going to wake up to find it doesn't matter because the only way out of the mess is inflation. One day the reset button is going to get hit in the worst way and it is these entitlement programs that will be the cause.

patteeu
01-26-2010, 09:54 AM
If he sticks to what programs they aren't freezing then I don't know what the problem is. You obviously can't freeze spending on defense and homeland security while we are in a war and you can't freeze Medicare or SS when alot of baby boomers are starting to join the ranks.

There won't be an across-the-board freeze for the rest of the spending either, despite what Obama is saying today. His word is only good until you get to the period at the end of his sentence and then all bets are off.

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 09:55 AM
I think it is too early to say one way or another about Obama and I am not ready to give up on him after 1 year or pass any judgments.

There is alot of people in the Lounge that say the same thing about Pioli\Haley and I am not ready to give up on them either.

He hasn't been perfect and he has made alot of mistakes but he still has a chance to turn it around.

This is a reasonable POV but at what point do you start to become concerned with the fast-approaching cliff?

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:58 AM
There won't be an across-the-board freeze for the rest of the spending either, despite what Obama is saying today. His word is only good until you get to the period at the end of his sentence and then all bets are off.

You could be right though I think the biggest obstacle will be his own party because they already are bitching. I don't know if he has the nads to veto something from them.

patteeu
01-26-2010, 09:58 AM
This is a reasonable POV but at what point do you start to become concerned with the fast-approaching cliff?

When dirk looks into Obama's eyes, he gets the same us-against-the-world feeling that Louise gave Thelma.

http://subwayphilosophy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/thelmalouise2.jpg

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 10:00 AM
If he sticks to what programs they aren't freezing then I don't know what the problem is. You obviously can't freeze spending on defense and homeland security while we are in a war and you can't freeze Medicare or SS when alot of baby boomers are starting to join the ranks.

They aren't freezing more than just entitlements and defense spending. And unless he plans on not having a budget for the next three years it will never work. Congress is never going to go along with this plan. Just as I predicted the health care bill would become filled with gerrymandered exclusions for liberal special interests, so will this plan - if it ever becomes more than a cute talking point.

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 10:02 AM
There won't be an across-the-board freeze for the rest of the spending either, despite what Obama is saying today. His word is only good until you get to the period at the end of his sentence and then all bets are off.

The procedings will be televised on C-Span.

You can keep your current insurance.

On and on.

Even when there is a period it usually doesn't matter.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 10:10 AM
This is a reasonable POV but at what point do you start to become concerned with the fast-approaching cliff?

I think by this time next year I will have pretty good idea

RINGLEADER
01-26-2010, 10:19 AM
I think by this time next year I will have pretty good idea

Fair enough.

Took me longer than that to realize Bush was an idiot at half the stuff that mattered to me so you're ahead of me on that curve.

One last thing relating to this freeze and what a sham it is. Is the 11% of the budget he's proposing to target being frozen at 2008 levels around $450 billion or at Obama levels near a $1 trillion?

Kind of hard to give the guy credit for a spending freeze when he does it after doubling said deficit first.

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 10:24 AM
Kind of hard to give the guy credit for a spending freeze when he does it after doubling said deficit first.

You're forgetting about the thousands and millions of jobs saved.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 10:26 AM
Fair enough.

Took me longer than that to realize Bush was an idiot at half the stuff that mattered to me so you're ahead of me on that curve.

One last thing relating to this freeze and what a sham it is. Is the 11% of the budget he's proposing to target being frozen at 2008 levels around $450 billion or at Obama levels near a $1 trillion?

Kind of hard to give the guy credit for a spending freeze when he does it after doubling said deficit first.

I just think it is too early for anyone to make judgments. They could well end up being right and me wrong but I like to give people a chance to succeed.

I don't really know but I think it would be closer to the $1 trillion.

The CBO just released their deficit projection

The latest estimates also see a $1.35 trillion deficit for the current budget year, dropping to $980 billion next year — but only if a host of tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush are allowed to expire.

The deficit would slide to $480 billion by 2015, CBO says, but only if tax cuts on income, investments and large estates are allowed to expire at the end of this year. Most budget experts see deficits as far higher once tax cuts and other policies are factored in.

bevischief
01-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Only one year in and the jackass is already grasping for straws.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lies.jpg

This about sums it up.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:52 AM
Fair enough.

Took me longer than that to realize Bush was an idiot at half the stuff that mattered to me so you're ahead of me on that curve.

One last thing relating to this freeze and what a sham it is. Is the 11% of the budget he's proposing to target being frozen at 2008 levels around $450 billion or at Obama levels near a $1 trillion?

Kind of hard to give the guy credit for a spending freeze when he does it after doubling said deficit first.

I get tired of supposed freezes or the trick where they say "we didn't increase the budget as much this year as we did last year". As if that is supposed to save money.

Why does the main street principle not apply to them? No money=no spending. That means spending CUTS!

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:57 AM
The freeze is only necessary because of Bush.

BigRedChief
01-26-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't believe that for a second. You think that we have such massive deficits (and national debt) because of health care costs?

No, it's because retarded politicians like to spend vastly more money than they take in tax revenue.no, the massive debt is is not because of health care costs, its just a contributing factor in 2010. But, have you looked at the projections? They are going to go through the roof. That was my point. Long term, say the next 20 years. Health care costs are going to be the big drag on the federal government. You think its bad now wait until the health care costs start escalating.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 11:51 AM
Yep, but it has grown exponentially under Barry. I mean the Republicans sucked, but Barry has sucked even harder. 8 years of debt from Bush is less that the amount of debt that Barry has accrued THIS YEAR.


WTF? When you state a "cold, hard, fact" do you not even think to fact-check ti before you end up looking ridiculous? Bush added about $5 trillion to the debt. While the $1.4 or whatever we're on target for for 2010 is horrendous enough, and it's double the pace Bush was on, it's certainly not worse than all eight years of BushCo's fiscal mismanagement.

I also note that Bush inherited a balanced, or nearly so, budget, and immeidatley moved to throw it out of whack and start us on this horrendous path. Harder to stop the train now that it's left the fuggin station...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 07:40 AM
One last thing relating to this freeze and what a sham it is. Is the 11% of the budget he's proposing to target being frozen at 2008 levels around $450 billion or at Obama levels near a $1 trillion?
I agree without putting everything on the table it will not produce meaniful defict reduction. But thats just not gonna happen. You think the Republicans are going to stand up and say freeze medicare, social security, defense? Not going to happen.

Question for the economist in here. Listening to the talking heads lately, supposely the depression turned into the great depression and the lost decade of Japan in the 90's was because government quit spending money during a recession. If that is true why would we repeat the same mistakes history has shown us to be mistakes?

The Mad Crapper
01-27-2010, 08:07 AM
How does one stop the exploding national debt from surging above 100 percent of GDP?

patteeu
01-27-2010, 08:31 AM
I agree without putting everything on the table it will not produce meaniful defict reduction. But thats just not gonna happen. You think the Republicans are going to stand up and say freeze medicare, social security, defense? Not going to happen.

Question for the economist in here. Listening to the talking heads lately, supposely the depression turned into the great depression and the lost decade of Japan in the 90's was because government quit spending money during a recession. If that is true why would we repeat the same mistakes history has shown us to be mistakes?

I'm not sure about your premise, but putting that aside, no one, not even Ron Paul, has suggested that the government stop spending. Many of us have suggested that the government quit spending at unprecedented rates in growth-retarding, economically counter-productive ways.

If spending $700 billion that we didn't have on non-stimulating "stimulus" was good, why not spend $7 trillion instead? If you agree that there is a limit to how much spending makes sense, then you will understand that some of us think the limit has been far exceeded by the absolute worst deficit spender in US history, Barack Obama, and by his frivolous band of thieving democrats in Congress.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 08:35 AM
I'm not sure about your premiseNot my premise. The talking heads say that history has shown pulling back on government spending in a recession makes it worse and longer. As I've said on many occasions, my economic theory and edication is shall we say, none. I was wanting to know if this is true and if so why would we cut back on government spending until the recession is over?

patteeu
01-27-2010, 08:37 AM
Not my premise. The talking heads say that history has shown pulling back on government spending in a recession makes it worse and longer. As I've said on many occasions, my economic theory and edication is shall we say, none. I was wanting to know if this is true and if so why would we cut back on government spending until the recession is over?

OK, correction, I'm not sure about the premise of the particular talking heads that you've been watching.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 08:43 AM
OK, correction, I'm not sure about the premise of the particular talking heads that you've been watching.Saw Krugman on one of those Sunday talk shows, watched some clip on Fox news, and another article off CNN. Didn't seem to be a partisan take on economics but more established fact.

RINGLEADER
01-27-2010, 09:06 AM
Saw Krugman on one of those Sunday talk shows, watched some clip on Fox news, and another article off CNN. Didn't seem to be a partisan take on economics but more established fact.

Well if we're talking about "established fact" then how about explaining why freezing spending at Obama's inflated 2009-10 levels isn't producing the OPPOSITE effect of what everyone believes it is doing?

The EPA budget didn't go up 3% or 5% or even 10% last year. It went up 35%! That's the spending level that Obama wants to "freeze" at - it's an increase we wouldn't have gotten to until 5-6 years from now if not for the great Obama/Dem spending binge of 2009. So we're actually freezing higher spending in place instead of scaling back to what some may label the pre-"crisis" levels.

And just another quick fact...the savings that a freeze would supposedly generate (which as noted above are fiction) have already been wiped out by the admin's shoddy projections on employment and revenues that together tacked on tens of billions in additional spending.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 09:22 AM
Saw Krugman on one of those Sunday talk shows, watched some clip on Fox news, and another article off CNN. Didn't seem to be a partisan take on economics but more established fact.

I'm sure it might have seemed that way, but I'm not so sure that it is. Your Krugman name drop makes me even less sure.

And you haven't addressed my question. If more spending is good, why don't we spend even more than we already have? Are you willing to say that there's no limit to the beneficial effects of ever-greater spending or are you going to admit that at some point too much spending becomes detrimental.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Saw Krugman on one of those Sunday talk shows, watched some clip on Fox news, and another article off CNN. Didn't seem to be a partisan take on economics but more established fact.

Krugman is an absolute moron to the tenth degree. He spews nothing but nonsense. It was Krugman who Obama relied on for his stupid stimulus.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 12:40 PM
I'm sure it might have seemed that way, but I'm not so sure that it is. Your Krugman name drop makes me even less sure.

And you haven't addressed my question. If more spending is good, why don't we spend even more than we already have? Are you willing to say that there's no limit to the beneficial effects of ever-greater spending or are you going to admit that at some point too much spending becomes detrimental.I have no idea. I'd leave that question to the economist's on here.

The Mad Crapper
01-27-2010, 03:10 PM
Tax Revenues continue downward trend since B.O. took office:

http://libertyworks.com/obamanomics-an-endless-downward-spiral/

The data shows that the private sector’s ability and willingness to generate wealth for government to seize through taxation is rapidly diminishing. These data show that Obama’s own actions are literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs he needs to fund his agenda.