Obama: 3 Year freeze on discretionary spending

[Mursilis]

another joke.

Basically, this. Once Congress gets done with this proposal, no one will even recognize it anymore, and it's quite likely no significant spending reduction will have taken place.

 

[cubeless]

Does wiggling my big toe count as a step?

for bo making a speech = doing something...

 

[Darwin333]

Politics is an art of the possible. I've seen you post and you aren't an idiot although I don't always agree with you (who always agrees with anyone anyway?)

My point is that we are not going to get special robes and wizard hats to change how things work. Therefore we have to work with what might be done, that is to say have less than fatal opposition.

Alone, I agree that Obama's solutions aren't going to be enough, and in fact there won't be any savings. What will happen is that his spending will not be considered "discretionary", child care credits for example.

All that he accomplished is holding down non-entitlement programs while he expands Medicaid and Medicare etc.

A wash at best.

Now if we could get a compromise where much more is included in a freeze, then the proportion of government to GDP would decrease. It would take time, but we would have a direction which would stimulate growth and improving the situation further.

Or, you could just set fire to the bank and fry your savings entirely.

Pick one, because you haven't a snowballs chance of actually cutting programs.

I am simply not as pessimistic about the situation. I understand and agree that small moves like this are about the best we can hope for but if you look at the total situation it doesn't lend much hope.

The problem is the math. We have to sell somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 TRILLION dollars worth of bonds this year to cover maturing debt as well as $1.3 trillion of new debt. The CBO is estimating another $1.2 trillionish next year and I think $600B a year after that (yeah right, figure in a few hundred billion in increased interest payments and they are only going to spend $200-400B more than we make) with no end in sight. None of this is considering any new spending programs or new tax cuts that Obama is talking about and I am pretty sure it doesn't include the yearly fix on the AMT.

Now lets add to that a dollar that has been heavily fluctuating, a huge decrease in foreign interest in our bonds, global economic issues (more demand for money and less supply at the same time), Fed already monetizing debt, a staggering amount of other paper guaranteed by the .gov that could potentially blow up (some not all, but even a few % will be an extraordinary amount of money), and all the other games we are playing in the financial market....

The bottom line is, where do we get that kinda of money from and at what price? When you start paying the minimum payments on maxed out credit cards with a new credit card while using another credit card to pay the minimum on that one eventually the bank cuts you off.

Its not that I don't think the cuts are a good thing because I do, I just don't think that it is nearly enough considering the circumstances. Maybe we can pull it off but another hiccup or two (another huge possibility since we haven't really fixed anything) and we could really be screwed. There are a couple of ideas out there on how the .gov could "entice" more interest in bonds such as crashing the market and causing that capital to flee to "safe investments" like US bonds but just like this theory the rest of them suck just as bad.

 

[Specop 007]

Obama cares about one thing. His image. He'll say anything to keep people smiling and eating up his bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

You think warfare is cheap?! ummm, no. It's disturbingly expensive. Hell, just moving troops from point A to B in a combat zone is expensive as all hell; not to mention feeding them, equipping them, arming them, and training them. (Also, please don't forget that "arming and equipping" involves everything from simple uniforms and M4's to aircraft carriers, satellites, and high-tech bombers).

And no, the military is not a fucking "welfare" program. The difference? We actually work for all of our "handouts," thanks.

Seriously, who the fuck threatens to cut military spending in a time of war? That's just sick... "Support the Troops" my ass!

I think he meant welfare as in the MIC. A large portion of .mil spending goes to private companies not to actual troops.

As far as cutting spending in a time of war, what do you suppose will happen if our lenders cut our ability to spend for us? We simply can't afford these two wars to go on for another decade. I don't have any good answers on what to do about them but the math doesn't lie.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think he meant welfare as in the MIC. A large portion of .mil spending goes to private companies not to actual troops.

As far as cutting spending in a time of war, what do you suppose will happen if our lenders cut our ability to spend for us? We simply can't afford these two wars to go on for another decade. I don't have any good answers on what to do about them but the math doesn't lie.

I have a good answer...get out.

 

[evident]

to all you criticising this, what else would you suggest he say? it seems like this is a good first step but yet he's still getting alot of flack. i really don't understand what he can say that will get ppl to stop bitching

 

[Darwin333]

to all you criticising this, what else would you suggest he say? it seems like this is a good first step but yet he's still getting alot of flack. i really don't understand what he can say that will get ppl to stop bitching

Thats like being so broke that your family has no food to eat tonight and you find a penny on the ground and saying its a good first step. Sure its a penny more than you had but are you really any closer to having enough to feed your family?

 

[Patranus]

Isn't this something that McCain purposed during the election?

 

[bamacre]

Isn't this something that McCain purposed during the election?

I think so, and I'm sure if he did, Obama opposed it.

 

[Mursilis]

to all you criticising this, what else would you suggest he say?

Say nothing - do something. Like veto a spending bill or two. Talk isn't just cheap - it's free, and essentially worthless.

 

[blackangst1]

"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,"


That quote explains it all.
In 2008 the government spent almost $3 trillion.
This year the government will spend $3.5 trillion.

That is a $500 billion increase in just 2 years.

To put that in perspective it took 4 years for Bush to go from $2.4t to $2.9t.

An even better example of why this is BS is to just look at non-defense discretionary spending under Obama.
In 2008 non-defense discretionary spending was $508 billion.
In 2009 non-defense discretionary spending was $586 billion.
In 2010 non-defense discretionary spending will be $666 billion.

We are talking about back to back 15% increases in spending.

So even after this 3 year freeze we will be way above where we should be had spending been held to inflationary levels.

Bingo. This is like when retailers raise prices by 30%, then have a sale for 10% off. Same thing.

edit: part of me says its a token, another part says its a step in the right direction. Either way, makes Bush's spending look pretty good

 

[Patranus]

Wait, so he doesn't want to cut spending rather the rate at which spending increases?

 

[werepossum]

Bingo. This is like when retailers raise prices by 30%, then have a sale for 10% off. Same thing.

edit: part of me says its a token, another part says its a step in the right direction. Either way, makes Bush's spending look pretty good

Well - less bad anyway. LOL
Though as I point out, presidents don't spend money, CONgress does. If Pelosi & Reid don't follow this means nothing, and I think they are still wedded to the Magic Cupboard theory of economics.

 

[blackangst1]

Well - less bad anyway. LOL
Though as I point out, presidents don't spend money, CONgress does. If Pelosi & Reid don't follow this means nothing, and I think they are still wedded to the Magic Cupboard theory of economics.

Touche Youre right.

 

[werepossum]

Touche Youre right.

I'm not just right, I'm FAR right! (For a tree-hugging libertarian anyway.)

 

[JS80]

Here's a way to solve both the deficit AND healthcare problems WITHOUT hurting the economy: get rid of medicare and medicaid. It will get rid of the deficit and it will lower demand for healthcare and lower the cost.

Of course, this is impossible in a democracy.

 

[palehorse]

Someome who wants us to not be at war on multiple fronts all over the world?

tell that to our enemies who have spread themselves out at every point on the compass.

But I think the answer had largely to do with cutting other mlitary spending the wars.

like what?

 

[palehorse]

Support the troops - bring them home.

As of right now, that ain't happening... so, don't go cutting anything until that happens, mmm 'k?

Thanks.

 

[Darwin333]

As of right now, that ain't happening... so, don't go cutting anything until that happens, mmm 'k?

Thanks.

And what if our lenders make the decission for us?

And seriously, what "return" or gain do we get out of borrowing more money to stay? Does it really make us any safer when the tactic of the enemy is to brainwash a guy into blowing himself up? How does occupying a country or two or all of them prevent them from blowing shit up over here? It would be different if they needed to raise an army to do it but they only need a handful of assholes to get to us.

We only need to borrow $3.5 trillion bucks this year, and everyone has a ton of money they are just dying to loan us at very low interest rates because we haven't fucked em over at all and our ability to pay it back is looking real good, so I know my concerns are off base.

 

[IGBT]

a do nothing political response to a self induced problem.

 

[her209]

Cut spending... just don't cut mine.