Obama's new budget to cut deficit in half

[actuarial]

So 16.7% is "massive" is it?

$453 billion – the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
$377 billion – the average annual defense budget during Clinton’s time in office, a 16.7% decrease.

Good thing Canada did not invade with only 377 Billion spent on the military in the US. :biggrin:

Are you accounting for eight years of inflation? Why did you choose the nine years prior instead of eight?

 

[Craig234]

Perhaps if they actually tried to work with them they would get better results. The ram-it-down-your-throat, take-it-or-leave-it political strategy has it's drawbacks...no?

Total BS. The Republicans opposed it purely out of political desire to deny as much as they could of a record for Democrats to run on - to break things so people would vote for change. When things are going better, people vote more for the incumbent party. What you are parroting is right-wing false propaganda. Indeed, Democrats went far too far in 'compromising' with Republicans - who would have bills changed to their position that they'd then turn around and vote against.

 

[Craig234]

Blocked in what??? Spending cuts???

Try to stay on topic please.

On basically everything. You made a false statement, don't try to invent some 'off-topic' whine when it's called false.

 

[PeshakJang]

Obama just blatantly lied in his press conference, telling reporters that by the middle of the decade, the deficit will be 0.

Edit: One reporter just called him on it... he's stumbling all over, blaming it on debt interest and rising health care costs... complete non answer to his question.

 

[Craig234]

This might deserve its own thread to discuss Republicans' budget, but for now, here, on Republicans slashing spending for the people while doing things like this example of apparently spending $450 on something for the Pentagon the Pentagon doesn't want, that benefits Bohner's district.

No, He Wouldn’t—Would He?
House Speaker’s State May Get $450 Million Extra
SOURCE: AP/Alex Brandon

Leaders of the new majority in the House of Representatives promised to cut spending and eliminate earmarks. But House budget legislation filed Friday night contains a provision that looks very much like an earmark that would benefit the hometown and congressional district of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), above.

By Scott Lilly | February 13, 2011

There are two things the leaders of the new majority in the House of Representatives have made clear since they began to assume the reins of power three months ago. They would:

* Cut spending
* Eliminate earmarks

Those two frequently repeated objectives are being translated into legislation in a 359-page bill filed on the House floor Friday evening—legislation that will be considered by the full House later this week without the benefit of hearings or even committee deliberation. As promised, the bill contains a breathtaking list of program cuts and terminations.

The bill would shred, among other things, the social safety net in hard-pressed localities across America with reductions in nutrition programs for infants and pregnant mothers. And it would cut federal support to keep destitute families from having their heat and electricity cut off during one of the coldest winters in recent memory. Preliminary analysis also indicates that Head Start programs may be forced to shut down a month early in many communities across the country. Finally, the bill would deliver a particularly hard blow to struggling local governments, canceling out billions of dollars in assistance to law enforcement, sewer construction, support of local schools, and so forth.

But buried deeply in these 359 pages of ugly surprises is a provision that would mean one community in America would do a lot better than all of the others. The legislation added an estimated $450 million for a particular bit of defense spending that the Department of Defense did not ask for and does not want.

The item is a down payment that would obligate the federal government to future payments that could well be three or four times the increased spending added to this particular piece of legislation, with a big portion of the funds flowing to two cities in Ohio—Cincinnati, where Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) grew up, and Dayton, the largest city in his congressional district.

The money will go to pay the costs to General Electric Co.’s General Electric Aviation unit and the British-owned Rolls Royce Group for their development of an engine for the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft—money that looks, feels, and smells very much like an earmark.

Should the Department of Defense end up paying the two companies to develop the engine it is hoped that they will then buy significant numbers of them for the aircraft. The problem that the Pentagon has with this plan for using tax dollars is that they already have an engine for the plane—an engine that was decided on when the contract for production of the plane was agreed to 10 years ago.

But that does not deter union leaders, company executives, and local government officials in Dayton and Cincinnati from arguing their case. At a rally held at one of GE’s Ohio facilities last October, the company announced the addition of 500 new jobs at the Cincinnati and Dayton plants and emphasized the importance of congressional action to override Pentagon objections to the program. A story from the October 22 edition of the Dayton Business Journal entitled “GE’s fighter engine ‘a huge issue’ for Tri-State economy” reported:

The Pentagon insists GE’s second engine isn’t needed, that it has no use for it, and that further development is a waste of money. But the engine’s supporters in Congress—and Evendale, where GE employs more than 7,000—beg to differ...“It’s a huge issue. There’s a lot at risk here,” said Gary Jordan, president of United Aerospace Workers Local 647.

The increased funding added to the new House budget bill was done in a manner even more “stealthy” than the plane that the would-be engine hopes to power. It is believed to be mixed in with much larger spending totals in one or more of the bill’s military research and development accounts. Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL) conceded to Reuters on Friday that "the bill that we're going to deal with next week has the money in it," referring to the GE-Rolls Royce engine.

The local political sensitivity on this issue is so strong that it was repeatedly rumored that assurances on the second engine were being offered by competing candidates during the contest in the House last December to determine the new chairman of the full appropriations committee. Whether or not Rep. Boehner can leverage the White House into signing legislation that contains a major spending increase that neither President Barack Obama nor the Pentagon favors, the mere existence of the spending program in the House bill would seem to significantly tarnish the commitment of Rep. Boehner and his colleagues in the House to spending cuts and the end to earmarking.

Scott Lilly is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

 

[PeshakJang]

The increased funding added to the new House budget bill was done in a manner even more “stealthy” than the plane that the would-be engine hopes to power. It is believed to be mixed in with much larger spending totals in one or more of the bill’s military research and development accounts.

So an admitted left-wing reporter reports that he "believes" the money is mixed in somewhere, and you jump on board.

Fail234

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Total BS. The Republicans opposed it purely out of political desire to deny as much as they could of a record for Democrats to run on - to break things so people would vote for change. When things are going better, people vote more for the incumbent party. What you are parroting is right-wing false propaganda. Indeed, Democrats went far too far in 'compromising' with Republicans - who would have bills changed to their position that they'd then turn around and vote against.

Yeah...that's the ticket...the Dems did everything possible to work in a bipartisan manner and compromised way too much as it was. You sir have a very interesting perspective.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

On basically everything. You made a false statement, don't try to invent some 'off-topic' whine when it's called false.

The topic is not "basically everything" in case you haven't noticed....just saying.

 

[ProfJohn]

On basically everything. You made a false statement, don't try to invent some 'off-topic' whine when it's called false.

So the Democrats tried to cut the budget deficit but the Republicans blocked them via a filibuster?

And you accuse ME of making a false statement?

 

[Craig234]

The topic is not "basically everything" in case you haven't noticed....just saying.

It was the answer to the question. The claim that Democrats could pass whatever they wanted is a lie. That applies to this topic and to almost any legislation. Follow the thread.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah...that's the ticket...the Dems did everything possible to work in a bipartisan manner

Straw man distortion of what was said.

and compromised way too much as it was.

The ignorance here is so tiring. You're wrong. Get informed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Straw man distortion of what was said.



Fixed.

Then please clarify. Do you think Dems made serious efforts to work with Republicans in a bipartisan manner?

Yes or no.

 

[Vette73]

Are you accounting for eight years of inflation? Why did you choose the nine years prior instead of eight?

$453 billion – the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
$377 billion – the average annual defense budget during Clinton’s time in office, a 16.7% decrease.

"These numbers are in GDP adjusted dollars to make the comparisons as fair as possible."

Just what I found quickly.



If you wanted a loaded answer then this also popped up...
Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-01-24/...se-budget-military-spending?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was the answer to the question. The claim that Democrats could pass whatever they wanted is a lie. That applies to this topic and to almost any legislation. Follow the thread.

If anyone here is a liar and making distortions...it's you. No claim was made that Democrats could pass whatever they wanted. See below:

Reagan didn't have total control of congress like Obama and the Democrats did.

The lie repeated. The Democrats were blocked constantly by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

 

[soundforbjt]

Perhaps if they actually tried to work with them they would get better results. The ram-it-down-your-throat, take-it-or-leave-it political strategy has it's drawbacks...no?

Worked for repubs for years..

 

[ProfJohn]

If you wanted a loaded answer then this also popped up...
Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-01-24/...se-budget-military-spending?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

After cutting defense spending for 7 years he turns around and asks for an increase and people proclaim it the biggest increase since Reagan?? God the media is full of idiots.

BTW in 1989 the DoD budget was $294 billion in 2001 it was $290 billion. That is a HUGE decrease in spending. Especially when you factor in the increases in GDP that took place during that 10 year period. In 1992 we spent 4.8% of our GDP on defense by 2000 that had dropped to 3%.

So please don't ever claim that Clinton wanted to raise defense spending.

 

[blackangst1]

Half of Obama's Deficit is still three times larger than Bush's largest deficit, lol.

This.

 

[Vette73]

Find me a chart showing the same thing by control of congress and we'll talk.

Oh you mean when Reagan was Prez?

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic,

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he, Reagan, requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.
So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Damm facts, always making republicans look bad and calling out their lies as well. :awe:

 

[etrigan420]

Find me a chart showing the same thing by control of congress and we'll talk.

So if control of congress is the sole determining factor with regards to the budget, then why are you crying about what the president is saying on the matter? Republicans have the House...so we're good? Right? No? You're *still* bitching?

 

[PeshakJang]

So if control of congress is the sole determining factor with regards to the budget, then why are you crying about what the president is saying on the matter? Republicans have the House...so we're good? Right? No? You're *still* bitching?

My gripe is with the fact that he's still grandstanding about how he's making the tough decisions, making deep cuts, and fulfilling his promises to cut the deficit, while submitting a proposal that does the opposite of that.

Thank God that the Republicans will at least slow down his money train... but hey... they inherited this problem from the Democratic congress... so they get a pass for as long as it takes, right?

I mean, come on... he JUST said a few times in his press conference that by 2015 we would not be adding to our debt. A reported even called him on that bullshit, showing him that his own budget says they'll be adding 700-800 billion in deficit spending for 2015, and he started talking about interest payments, medical costs, and completely dodged the question.

 

[Craig234]

buh bye

After having a manual ignore list, I recently saw the page for a system one. Added you.

http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

 

[PeshakJang]

After having a manual ignore list, I recently saw the page for a system one. Added you.

http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

You going to fake-ignore me again? Or do you want to throw in another tantrum first?

Little known fact.. "Ignore" was a feature added to vBulletin to allow liberals to win an argument every now-and-then.

 

[werepossum]

So 16.7% is "massive" is it?

$453 billion – the average annual defense budget for the nine years before Clinton took office.
$377 billion – the average annual defense budget during Clinton’s time in office, a 16.7% decrease.

Good thing Canada did not invade with only 377 Billion spent on the military in the US. :biggrin:

Yes, 16.7% is massive. Show me another department that failed to show a double digit increase in budget. Besides that, average spending clouds the issue, as it credits Clinton with military spending prior to his massive cuts. It also ignores that massive cuts had just been made under George H.W. Bush. The "peace dividend" is actually a bipartisan problem, with both parties wanting a smaller military but wanting it to do more. (Remember, Congress sets military levels; the President is only part of the problem.)

We fought the first Gulf War with sixteen Army divisions; Bush fought the second half with ten. Considering that the divisions (and the separate brigades and regiments) and all other branches also lost personnel, that's roughly a 33% cut in warm bodies between George H.W. Bush & Clinton. If the Pubbies managed to cut roughly 33% of other government workers, your vestigial testicles would explode out your eye sockets.

More to the point, that's 33% of the military that can be replaced with bureaucrats just to reach parity in total numbers of government employees. And that doesn't even count the number of government employees released and immediately rehired as contract employees just to make the head count look better.

 

[werepossum]

Oh you mean when Reagan was Prez?

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic,

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he, Reagan, requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.
So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Damm facts, always making republicans look bad and calling out their lies as well. :awe:

The House (which by the way has no filibuster equivalent to empower the minority) was Democrat-controlled since Eisenhower, until the 1994 elections. You may recall that Constitutionally all spending bills have to originate in the House. Only the Senate was ever Republican, and by the slimmest of margins, during parts of Reagan's presidency.

Your point about Reagan's spending is correct though. Mostly he was concerned with rebuilding the military, which had been gutted under Carter (the Messiah prototype.) Neither party has historically been responsible in spending.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

After having a manual ignore list, I recently saw the page for a system one. Added you.

http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Interesting that he would take this approach without even giving a reason. I guess he doesn't like direct questions and especially being called a 'liar' since that's his favorite thing to do to others who don't share his incredibly twisted hyper-partisan perspectives. The man has some serious issues.