PDA

View Full Version : Obaaaaaama Seeks $17B in Budget Cuts


HometownGal
05-07-2009, 04:22 PM
I believe it is becoming more and more obvious that this clown is absolutely clueless.:doh: I think this statement sums up The Savior's budget cuts best:

"Its like taking a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you keep the spigot on at full speed and the bathtub continues to fill up. A spigot of spending," :banging::banging::banging:

http://kdka.com/politics/obama.budget.spending.2.1003472.html

Obama Seeks $17B In Budget Cuts

In twin strokes, President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to award generous budget increases to domestic programs while proposing relatively modest cuts to wasteful or obsolete programs that just won't seem to die.

Mr. Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget has produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion - or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were unveiled Thursday.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama addressed criticism over the size of the cuts, saying that "these savings, large and small, add up." :shake01:

White House budget director Peter Orszag added that the president's plan for program cuts is just a start and that a lot more needs to be done to dig the government out of its fiscal hole, especially curbing the growth of the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and the poor.

"But $17 billion a year is not chump change by anyone's accounting," he said. (Hey dum dum - when you're spending trillions per year, it's chump change :doh:)

Those savings are far exceeded by a phone-book-sized volume detailing Mr. Obama's generous increases for domestic programs that will accompany the call for cuts. And instead of devoting the savings to defray record deficits, the White House is funneling them back into other programs.

Republicans were quick to ridicule the small amount of savings Mr. Obama wants in a budget that increases domestic spending across the board, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss.

"Its like taking a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you keep the spigot on at full speed and the bathtub continues to fill up. A spigot of spending," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

"While we appreciate the newfound attention to saving taxpayer dollars from this administration, we respectfully suggested that we should do far more," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

The irony, Fuss reports, is that even though the cuts the president proposes are relatively small, each program he's targeted has supporters among both Democrats and Republicans and Congress will likely end up keeping most of them.

Most of the major elements of Mr. Obama's budget for next year were released in February. Additional details, including an increase in fees on airline travel to fund airport security programs, come next week. :jawdrop:

The roster of cuts won't be easy for Congress to swallow. Lawmakers from the potent California, New York and Florida delegations are sure to fight the elimination of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which gives money to states to help defray the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit crimes. President George W. Bush tried and failed to kill the $400 million program several times.

Mr. Obama is also claiming savings from eliminating a host of accounts typically earmarked by members of Congress such as a $10 million West Virginia highway project obtained by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and $15 million obtained by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for diesel emissions reduction grants.

Mr. Obama is also proposing $145 million in savings from a clean water program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency which bankrolled 301 earmarks this year.

But Mr. Obama is not actually proposing to kill thousands of earmarks funded in the $410 billion catchall spending bill passed in March. (Gee - what a shocker. :jerkit:)

In fact, some of the cuts, like terminating production of C-17 cargo aircraft and phasing out direct payments to farmers with sales exceeding $500,000 annually, have already been rejected by Mr. Obama's allies in Congress. A key House panel is proposing adding $2.2 billion for 8 C-17s to Mr. Obama's pending war request, while a congressional budget plan passed last week protects the farm payments targeted by Mr. Obama.

About half the budget savings would come from an effort by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to curb defense programs, including ending production of the F-22 fighter and killing a much-maligned replacement helicopter fleet for the president that's way over budget.

Orszag briefed Democratic lawmakers on a partial roster of the cuts Wednesday. Mr. Obama also is fleshing out the details of the $1.3 trillion portion of the budget that he requested Congress pass through appropriations bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

The administration is also proposing curbing subsidies for crop insurance to save $5.2 billion over 10 years and killing a $25 million program that funds the relocation of rail lines.

And just as Congress is beginning work on a new war bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the fall, Mr. Obama is sending up a $130 billion request to fund them next year. That figure may not be adequate considering the increase in the tempo of operations in Afghanistan. (I thought Obaaaaama was going to pull the troops out of Iraq? :scratchchin:)

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly his administration will go through the budget "line by line" to eliminate waste. But the resulting savings are relatively minor compared with the government's fiscal woes, especially a deficit that's likely to exceed $1.5 trillion this year.

Many of the cuts mirror those proposed previously by Bush but largely rejected by Congresses controlled by both Republicans and Democrats. (More Obaaaaaama hypocrisy. :rolleyes:)

In fact, Democrats already have pared about $10 billion from Mr. Obama's appropriations requests in passing the $3.4 trillion congressional budget plan last month.

In a preview, administration officials named a few examples Thursday which mostly represented easy-to-pluck targets, like ending the Education Department's attache in Paris, at a savings of $632,000 a year. Another example: the obsolete LORAN-C marine navigation system, which still gets $35 million a year despite being made obsolete by the satellite-based Global Positioning System.

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 04:35 PM
ho hum.... i'll see your $17 billion and raise you $295 bill.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/obama_backs_def.html

Obama backs defense procurement overhaul

President Obama this afternoon invited four key lawmakers to offer his support to legislation to revamp how the Pentagon buys weapons.

"These four leaders have put together a procurement reform package that is long overdue. They've shown extraordinary courage and extraordinary leadership in moving it forward," Obama said about Senator John McCain, his presidential rival last year, along with Senator Carl Levin and Representatives Ike Skelton and John McHugh. "It's fully bipartisan. It has the support of the Department of Defense, and it has my full support.

"And so I'm eager to get this legislation on my desk before Memorial Day, so that we can start getting on track to spending all our money wisely -- not just in the Defense Department, but as I've said, if we can crack this nut, as tough as it is, it gives us further momentum to continue to make the changes in our budget that can start assuring taxpayers that their money is being well spent, and in the process, it means that we're going to be spending our money in ways that are more likely to keep the American people safe," Obama added.

With Obama's assent, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earlier this month unveiled a new shopping list to improve the military's response to insurgencies and end wasteful big-ticket programs. It is a mixed bag for New England, promising cuts in some major defense projects being built at local plants, but also promising new contracts.

Obama's full remarks are below:


THE PRESIDENT: Well, the main thing that I wanted to do was to thank the four leaders who are here -- Congressman Skelton and McHugh, and Senators Levin and McCain.

The GAO last year looked at 95 major acquisitions in the Defense Department and found that we had $295 billion worth of overruns and wasteful spending -- $295 billion. And as Secretary Gates has said, every dollar that's wasted because of inappropriate no-bid contracts and waste and abuse, that's a dollar that could be going to help our -- protect our troops, advance our national security, keep the American people safe.

These four leaders have put together a procurement reform package that is long overdue. They've shown extraordinary courage and extraordinary leadership in moving it forward. It's fully bipartisan. It has the support of the Department of Defense, and it has my full support.

And so I'm eager to get this legislation on my desk before Memorial Day, so that we can start getting on track to spending all our money wisely -- not just in the Defense Department, but as I've said, if we can crack this nut, as tough as it is, it gives us further momentum to continue to make the changes in our budget that can start assuring taxpayers that their money is being well spent, and in the process, it means that we're going to be spending our money in ways that are more likely to keep the American people safe.

So I just want to thank these legislators. They have the full support of the White House moving forward. And as part of this, I also just want to mention I think that Secretary Gates has done a tremendous job with the budget that he's crafted going forward in reflecting some of the same principles -- that we spend our money where it's needed based on national security interests, and not based on politics. And I'm going to be urging everybody to take a hard, close look at the reforms that Secretary Gates has proposed. I think it's part and parcel of the overall attempt at gaining efficiency and improving out national security.

So, thank you, gentlemen, for the great work you're doing.

Thank you, guys.



sorry for the interruption. you guys can go back to the :shout: PANIC!!! and :banging:

HometownGal
05-07-2009, 04:39 PM
Deflect, deflect, deflect. SOS - different thread. :rolleyes:

To quote an infamous SF legend :wink02::

"Nice how you only pick one small thing to address. . . . "

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 04:43 PM
Deflect, deflect, deflect. SOS - different thread. :rolleyes:

To quote an infamous SF legend :wink02::

"Nice how you only pick one small thing to address. . . . "

:rofl: i trumped your 17 bil and you try to deflect by saying i am deflecting??? :rofl:

:busted: Diversion Alert! :busted:

i guess you dont care to address the 1/3 trillion dollars bush/cheney were lining their buddies pockets with (worthless bastards).

MasterOfPuppets
05-07-2009, 04:57 PM
i seen earlier, they were talking about the "mine cleanup budget" , not only were the states givin funds to cleanup the mines, they have continued to receive funds even after they were done.......:doh:

MACH1
05-07-2009, 05:02 PM
New definition of asinine - Democrat

HometownGal
05-07-2009, 05:04 PM
:rofl: i trumped your 17 bil and you try to deflect by saying i am deflecting??? :rofl:



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Tony - the game is getting old. :coffee: You're losing your touch - it's quite obvious to anyone with a brain cell what you are doing - - as usual. How about directly addressing the content of the thread instead of the redundant deflecting?

i guess you dont care to address the 1/3 trillion dollars bush/cheney were lining their buddies pockets with (worthless bastards).[

But, but, but, but . . . Bush. :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

Vincent
05-07-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm just thankful they aren't asking for Brazilians:chuckle:.

revefsreleets
05-07-2009, 05:09 PM
295 billion is good! The guy isn't going to eff up EVERYTHING he touches.

But the 17 is stupid and it's just a token act.

MasterOfPuppets
05-07-2009, 05:12 PM
295 billion is good! The guy isn't going to eff up EVERYTHING he touches.

But the 17 is stupid and it's just a token act.
its right in line with the 151 , 18 mill.....cut proposals last year......:noidea:

MACH1
05-07-2009, 05:12 PM
$17B In Budget Cuts is 1/5 of 1% of the federal deficit.

revefsreleets
05-07-2009, 05:16 PM
its right in line with the 151 , 18 mill.....cut proposals last year......:noidea:


Wait a second...LAST year?

You mean....when evil baby eating, kitten killing Bush was in the White House?

MasterOfPuppets
05-07-2009, 05:23 PM
Wait a second...LAST year?

You mean....when evil baby eating, kitten killing Bush was in the White House?

actually, its evil kitten eating......

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8984/funnybush04.jpg (http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=funnybush04.jpg)

revefsreleets
05-07-2009, 05:29 PM
I get his evilness mixed up sometimes...all I know is Obama sure emulates a lot of his actions. Isn't Bush like the worst President ever or something? Still can't quite figure out why Obama has cribbed half his ACTUAL platform from him...

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 05:30 PM
Tony - the game is getting old. :coffee: You're losing your touch - it's quite obvious to anyone with a brain cell what you are doing - - as usual. How about directly addressing the content of the thread instead of the redundant deflecting?



directly addressing the thread??? you tried to clown obama for a 17 billion dollars in buget cut.

I believe it is becoming more and more obvious that this clown is absolutely clueless. I think this statement sums up The Savior's budget cuts best:
i directly addressed the bullshit.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama addressed criticism over the size of the cuts, saying that "these savings, large and small, add up." you actually shook your head at 1/3 of a trillion dollars.

i think you are losing your touch. anyone with HALF a braincell can see that $312 billion is pretty freaking significant as opposed to the poo-poo'ing you delivered. :poop:

X-Terminator
05-07-2009, 06:23 PM
directly addressing the thread??? you tried to clown obama for a 17 billion dollars in buget cut.

i directly addressed the bullshit.

you actually shook your head at 1/3 of a trillion dollars.

i think you are losing your touch. anyone with HALF a braincell can see that $312 billion is pretty freaking significant as opposed to the poo-poo'ing you delivered. :poop:

Is that $295 billion proposal (that let's not forget, hasn't been put up for a vote yet) part of the $3.4 trillion spending bill that is mentioned in the OP? No? Then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't mean a thing. Cutting $17 billion from a bill that size is nothing, and means very little. I'll believe the $295 billion cut when I see it. I trust NO ONE in Washington to do the right thing when it comes to OUR money.

Texasteel
05-07-2009, 07:20 PM
i directly addressed the bullshit.

you actually shook your head at 1/3 of a trillion dollars.



Sorry Tony, all I got out of that is that you still don't like what Bush did. The tread is about President Obama


I think a lot of us are still shaking our heads over the budget, not the cuts.

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 07:22 PM
Then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't mean a thing.$295 billion being skimmed off the top doesnt mean a thing to you? :jawdrop:

wow. no wonder were in this mess. people simply dont care.

trusting noone in washington is fine. i feel a hell of alot better knowing the republican iraqi war racket of writing blank checks to DoD contractor buddies is coming to an end.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652

DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal


President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010. The budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $533.8 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $130 billion to support overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.



The proposed DoD base budget represents an increase of $20.5 billion over the $513.3 billion enacted for fiscal 2009. This is an increase of 4 percent, or 2.1 percent real growth after adjusting for inflation.



The fiscal 2010 budget proposal will end the planned use of supplemental requests to fund overseas operations, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The inclusion of these expenses as a separate category in the department’s annual budget request will ensure greater transparency and accountability to Congress and the American people. The budget will also request funds in the base that were previously in supplementals for programs such as those supporting our military families and providing long-term medical care to injured service members.


“This budget provides the balance necessary to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.



Key highlights of the proposed DoD budget are outlined in the attached overview and summary charts. For more information and to view the entire fiscal 2010 budget proposal, please visit http://www.budget.mil and download the department’s “FY 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification.” Budget-related transcripts can also be viewed online at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/index.aspx?mo=4&yr=2009 to include “DoD News Briefing With Secretary Gates From The Pentagon” on April 6, 2009.

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 07:24 PM
Sorry Tony, all I got out of that is that you still don't like what Bush did. The tread is about President Obama


I think a lot of us are still shaking our heads over the budget, not the cuts.

thats fine. shake away.

you think we will get out of this mess for free? there is no magic pill....

(i'll side with people in the know, like warren buffett, as opposed to a bunch of internet head shakers.)

:hunch:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18672648

President Bush on Monday released a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that, if approved, would raise military spending to inflation-adjusted levels not seen since World War II.



were you all shaking your heads back then? or bowing at the altar of bush the savior? more right wing hypocricy. its ok for a GOP administration to spend 3 trillion dollars, but everyone throws a bitch-fit if a democrat does. :rolleyes:

:busted:

Texasteel
05-07-2009, 08:03 PM
thats fine. shake away.

you think we will get out of this mess for free? there is no magic pill....

(i'll side with people in the know, like warren buffett, as opposed to a bunch of internet head shakers.)

:hunch:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18672648



were you all shaking your heads back then? or bowing at the altar of bush the savior? more right wing hypocricy. its ok for a GOP administration to spend 3 trillion dollars, but everyone throws a bitch-fit if a democrat does. :rolleyes:

:busted:

Tony I just wanted you to tell me what Bushes past has to do with Obamas budget.

When you have a credit card maxed out and have trouble pay it, the last thing you want to do is get another credit card.

It seems that theres only one person here bowing at an alter, Obaba's.

Isn't Warren Buffet one of those rich, greedy, opportunist that made their fortune on the backs of the common people.

revefsreleets
05-07-2009, 08:57 PM
Like I said, Obama isn't going to eff up EVERYTHING he touches. He got something right, and , for once, he actually STUCK to a campaign promise.

Now THAT is change I can believe in!

Texasteel
05-07-2009, 09:24 PM
Like I said, Obama isn't going to eff up EVERYTHING he touches. He got something right, and , for once, he actually STUCK to a campaign promise.

Now THAT is change I can believe in!

Believe me rev, I hope he is right and everything turns out peachy keen, when is the last time you've heard that fraze. This is my country too, and I want it to come out of this just fine. We won't know for quite a while, till then any one that wants to complain about him has the right to, just like with Bush.

steelwall
05-07-2009, 09:44 PM
$295 billion being skimmed off the top doesnt mean a thing to you? :jawdrop:

wow. no wonder were in this mess. people simply dont care.


Actually thats not what he said....

Is that $295 billion proposal (that let's not forget, hasn't been put up for a vote yet) part of the $3.4 trillion spending bill that is mentioned in the OP? No? Then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't mean a thing. [/B]

KeiselPower99
05-07-2009, 10:01 PM
i seen earlier, they were talking about the "mine cleanup budget" , not only were the states givin funds to cleanup the mines, they have continued to receive funds even after they were done.......:doh:

I know there is several mines here in West Virginia that after having their permits turned over are not reopening. And as for the 10 million dollar road work for this state maybe he should come visit here and see how horrible this roads are. Remember the "stimulis" word of Infrastructure??

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 11:28 PM
I know there is several mines here in West Virginia that after having their permits turned over are not reopening. And as for the 10 million dollar road work for this state maybe he should come visit here and see how horrible this roads are. Remember the "stimulis" word of Infrastructure??

you mean this?- Caution ahead: stimulus slowdowns.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-03-slowdown_N.htm

WASHINGTON —
Drivers across the country will have to contend with far more roadwork — and all the frustration that goes with it — as states prepare to launch a spate of new highway projects this summer. The work is part of President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package and is meant to create jobs by repairing roads and bridges.

"People will see more construction. There's no question about it," says Brian Blanchard, the chief engineer for Florida's Department of Transportation. That work will begin at the same time more cars will likely be vying to squeeze onto the roads, because gas prices are expected to be lower this summer than they were last year, AAA spokesman Troy Green says.

All told, the stimulus will give states an extra $27 billion to repair roads and bridges, on top of roughly $42 billion in annual aid. Much of that will be spent during this summer's construction season, and at least $200 million worth of work has already started, says John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Exactly where all those bottlenecks will be or how long they'll last isn't clear because states haven't yet decided on all their stimulus projects. But transportation officials say the huge influx of federal money inevitably will mean more work zones across the country:

• In Florida, the stimulus will mean another $1.3 billion worth of roadwork over the next two years, about 25% more than normal, Blanchard says. Much of it will go to small improvements the state put off in recent years because it didn't have enough money, including rebuilding a busy interchange on Miami's Dolphin Expressway, he says.

• Pennsylvania expects a "record building program" this summer, state transportation spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick says. Around Philadelphia, the volume of roadwork will be almost double what drivers have seen in recent years, including work on a bridge that carries I-95 near downtown. "We know there are going to be some challenges. We understand it's frustrating," he says.

• New York will increase spending by more than 60% this year, focusing on smaller road and bridge projects, says Tim Gilchrist, an adviser to Gov. David Paterson. "There will be an impact on the public, but it's creating jobs," Gilchrist says.

In other states, the extra money will make up for what could have been dramatic cutbacks. Missouri officials expected their construction spending to drop by nearly half over the next two years, but "the stimulus bought us another 12 to 18 months," says Transportation Director Pete Rahn.

States will try to minimize disruptions by requiring that work be done at night and not clumping projects too close together. "We know it's frustrating. We're drivers, too," says Texas Department of Transportation spokesman Chris Lippincott.


doesnt sound to me like obama needs to come look at your roads. sounds to me like your state needs to get on the ball and figure out what the hell they are going to do with the money they got.

write your congressmen or governor cause obama already did his part. :sun:

X-Terminator
05-08-2009, 12:27 AM
thats fine. shake away.

you think we will get out of this mess for free? there is no magic pill....

(i'll side with people in the know, like warren buffett, as opposed to a bunch of internet head shakers.)

:hunch:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18672648



were you all shaking your heads back then? or bowing at the altar of bush the savior? more right wing hypocricy. its ok for a GOP administration to spend 3 trillion dollars, but everyone throws a bitch-fit if a democrat does. :rolleyes:

:busted:

You assume too much, Tony. I have never liked or agreed with Bush spending that kind of money when we simply didn't have it. Same with Obama now. Bush was no fiscal conservative, not by a long shot. Neither is Obama, but to be fair, he never promoted himself as such. This country is going to continue to run up debt until someone comes along who is serious about curbing spending, or the nation goes tits-up, or we end up being owned by China and Japan.

X-Terminator
05-08-2009, 12:37 AM
$295 billion being skimmed off the top doesnt mean a thing to you? :jawdrop:

wow. no wonder were in this mess. people simply dont care.

trusting noone in washington is fine. i feel a hell of alot better knowing the republican iraqi war racket of writing blank checks to DoD contractor buddies is coming to an end.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652

Quote the whole thing, Tony. Don't just snip-n-run:

Is that $295 billion proposal (that let's not forget, hasn't been put up for a vote yet) part of the $3.4 trillion spending bill that is mentioned in the OP? No? Then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't mean a thing. Cutting $17 billion from a bill that size is nothing, and means very little. I'll believe the $295 billion cut when I see it. I trust NO ONE in Washington to do the right thing when it comes to OUR money.

I'm supposed to give 3 cheers for Obama because he is PROPOSING a spending cut, that still has to get through Congress before it gets to his desk? Uh-uh. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. Until that piece of paper reaches his desk and he puts his John Hanc0ck on it, it's meaningless as far as I'm concerned. It's especially meaningless considering that he did NOT cut it from his albatross of a spending bill.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 12:47 AM
You assume too much, Tony. I have never liked or agreed with Bush spending that kind of money when we simply didn't have it. Same with Obama now. Bush was no fiscal conservative, not by a long shot. Neither is Obama, but to be fair, he never promoted himself as such. This country is going to continue to run up debt until someone comes along who is serious about curbing spending, or the nation goes tits-up, or we end up being owned by China and Japan.you just quoted a post that was clearly directed at texasteel. :hunch: had nothing to do with what YOU like or agreed with.

Quote the whole thing, Tony. Don't just snip-n-run:





I'm supposed to give 3 cheers for Obama because he is PROPOSING a spending cut, that still has to get through Congress before it gets to his desk? Uh-uh. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. Until that piece of paper reaches his desk and he puts his John Hanc0ck on it, it's meaningless as far as I'm concerned. It's especially meaningless considering that he did NOT cut it from his albatross of a spending bill.

:toofunny: are you serious? "snip-n-run" :toofunny: hilarious!!!! the entire post was just a scroll up. if anyone wanted to read it they could just .......scroll up.

are you really telling me how to post and what to quote? i guess you just LOVE the people who quote an entire article just to say "nice read. i enjoyed the article"????

i didnt run nowhere. you still see me here right?

you aint s'posed to do anything you dont want to. :noidea:

i get it.... you dont give a shit about $295 billion disappearing like a fart into the wind, plus you dont even believe it.

to each his own.

as far as youre concerned, "it doesnt mean a thing".

YOUR WORDS.... NOT MINE!

own it.

X-Terminator
05-08-2009, 01:00 AM
you just quoted a post that was clearly directed at texasteel. :hunch: had nothing to do with what YOU like or agreed with.



:toofunny: are you serious? "snip-n-run" :toofunny: hilarious!!!! the entire post was just a scroll up. if anyone wanted to read it they could just .......scroll up.

are you really telling me how to post and what to quote? i guess you just LOVE the people who quote an entire article just to say "nice read. i enjoyed the article"????

i didnt run nowhere. you still see me here right?

you aint s'posed to do anything you dont want to. :noidea:

i get it.... you dont give a shit about $295 billion disappearing like a fart into the wind, plus you dont even believe it.

to each his own.

as far as youre concerned, "it doesnt mean a thing".

YOUR WORDS.... NOT MINE!

own it.

Dude, you're getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

When I say "snip-n-run," I mean to just quote the whole post so that people can read my words rather than part of it, for clarity's sake. I'm not implying you're running anywhere. I'm not telling you how to do a damn thing.

And I own up to everything I said. I made it clear that I don't trust the government when it comes to our tax money or to make meaningful spending cuts. There's FAR too much money that gets flushed down the toilet, with no accountability whatsoever as to where it's going or what it's for. Again, when I see it happen, I'll believe it. Until then, it's just a PROPOSAL.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 01:01 AM
Like I said, Obama isn't going to eff up EVERYTHING he touches. He got something right, and , for once, he actually STUCK to a campaign promise.

Now THAT is change I can believe in!all other things aside, you definitely get props for being about the only one who actively posts in the Political Forum who would admit that, plus being about the only one who recognized our govt. must step in and spend beaucoup bucks to try and fix this mess. how that money was spent is still left up for debate- (i am not a fan of AIG bailout parties).

to not do so would be economical suicide.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 01:15 AM
Dude, you're getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

When I say "snip-n-run," I mean to just quote the whole post so that people can read my words rather than part of it, for clarity's sake. I'm not implying you're running anywhere. I'm not telling you how to do a damn thing.


your words were in post #16.

i quoted them in post #18.

are you suggesting that the people here are so retarded they dont know how to scroll up 2 freaking posts to see the entirety of your thread? :noidea:

LOL. you were implying that i was trying to hide something or being deceptive or something. youre definitely the one who got bent out of shape.

i prefer to not waste the pagespace and make a reader read twice to filter out exactly which point it is that i am quoting. that leads to misinterpretation.

if you cant deal with that, then just deal.

Until then, it's just a PROPOSAL

look! i cut another SINGLE point i wish to address (if that ticks you off, i dont care)...

proposal schmroposal... its got bi-partisan support... and it will signed, and it will get passed.

the buddies of those in govt (haliburton) are no longer going to get a blank check like they did in the past 8 years.

i dont see why you (or anyone else with a head on their shoulders) have a problem with this.

why are you so resitant to it?

X-Terminator
05-08-2009, 01:26 AM
your words were in post #16.

i quoted them in post #18.

are you suggesting that the people here are so retarded they dont know how to scroll up 2 freaking posts to see the entirety of your thread? :noidea:

LOL. you were implying that i was trying to hide something or being deceptive or something. youre definitely the one who got bent out of shape.

i prefer to not waste the pagespace and make a reader read twice to filter out exactly which point it is that i am quoting. that leads to misinterpretation.

if you cant deal with that, then just deal.



look! i cut another SINGLE point i wish to address (if that ticks you off, i dont care)...

proposal schmroposal... its got bi-partisan support... and it will signed, and it will get passed.

the buddies of those in govt (haliburton) are no longer going to get a blank check like they did in the past 8 years.

i dont see why you (or anyone else with a head on their shoulders) have a problem with this.

why are you so resitant to it?

Whatever on the first point.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with the proposal itself. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when it comes to wasteful and unnecessary spending. I am resistant only because I'm a skeptic when it comes to anything the government does with respect to our tax dollars. I hope the thing passes, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 01:30 AM
yeah...

whatever.

:cheers:

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 08:23 AM
Well, lookey here...JUST as predicted, there ain't enough money due to the economy being far worse than the overly optimistic Obama outlook. How are those deficits looking 10 years out now? Closer to Obama's projections, or can we finally admit that his numbers were wrong and we are headed for a HUGE long-term financial meltdown if this dude tries to waste trillions more socializing medicine and the like?

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/44575817.html

(Remember, this is AP, NOT Fox News)

Economic recovery too slow for Obama

President may run short of money, political muscle for his ambitious plans

By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press

Published on Friday, May 08, 2009

WASHINGTON: Barack Obama's budget, unveiled with fanfare Thursday, fails to deal with his biggest money problems.

A molasses-slow economic recovery will make it hard to find the huge sums he'll need to reach his biggest goals — fixing health care, confronting climate change and overhauling the tax system — without much deeper cuts than he's proposing in other programs.

Obama faces not only fiscal obstacles but political ones, as well.

The White House's exercise in fiscal discipline this week amounts to micro-cutting — proposals that would trim half a percent of the overall budget — and doesn't address the sacrosanct entitlements of Social Security and Medicare.

His effort found a scant $17 billion in potential savings, suggesting that only a strong economy and its boost in government revenue can truly put a dent in the federal deficit and pay for Obama's policy goals.

Pushing an ambitious agenda during a
tepid economic rebound will require money and presidential muscle that even the popular president might find in short supply.

In just two months, the recession has proven to be deeper than the White House predicted when Obama submitted his 2010 budget outline.


His budget writers in February forecast that the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, would shrink by 1.2 percent this year and then grow by a relatively robust 3.2 percent in 2010. But the economy contracted by 6.1 percent in the first quarter, and economists inside and outside government predict another, though smaller, contraction in the second quarter.

Likewise, the White House anticipated unemployment of 8.1 percent this year and slightly less next year. But unemployment is already at a 25-year high of 8.5 percent and is expected to climb when new numbers are announced Friday.

Midterm elections

A slow recovery heading into the 2010 midterm congressional elections will probably make Democratic lawmakers especially cautious. What does that mean for the president's agenda?

''It doesn't improve chances,'' said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a moderate. ''It might dampen some enthusiasm about trying to find a health-care solution that costs money.''

Over the first 100 days of Obama's presidency, the nation has shown patience with his approach toward the economy. Over time, the public will watch three key numbers: unemployment, the stock market and the deficit.

In the short term, only the stock market might offer some relief as workers could see value return to their 401(k) accounts.

But unemployment could reach 10 percent next year, according to some estimates. And the deficit, which the administration has predicted will reach nearly $1.2 trillion, will dip only to $533 billion in 2013, according to the president's own February projections.

In March, the Congressional Budget Office offered a bleaker prediction: a deficit of $672 billion in 2013 under the president's policies.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 41 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Obama's handling of the deficit, his highest disapproval rating on any subject polled. Other surveys show that the public is particularly attuned to government spending and the amount of red ink in the budget, a sign of restlessness that could pose a problem ahead.

Coupling ideas

Obama would like to couple the ideas of deficit-cutting and health-care overhaul. He says the overhaul — costing more than $630 billion over 10 years — is the answer to spiraling costs in Medicare and Medicaid.

''The big ticket, that's health care,'' said Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist. ''That's where some of our real savings come from in the longer term.''

As for the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicted it would begin growing again this year, citing improved home sales, increased consumer spending and signs of improved lending conditions.

But he said activity would remain below normal and ''only gradually gain momentum.'' Unemployment, which typically lags behind a recovery, ''could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes,'' he said. In a private luncheon, he told Senate Republicans that he projected 2 percent GDP growth in 2010, according to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

Bernanke's assessment reinforces the ''glimmers of hope'' with which Obama has begun to promote the economy.

But it also underscores the difficulties Obama will have persuading Congress, even one dominated by his party, to put new potential stresses on the economy while it is still getting back on its feet.

''The problem, the challenge for the administration, is they don't just need tolerance or slack from the public; they need sufficient support to drive very difficult policies through Congress,'' said Robert Shapiro, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and now chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm.

The economy may well not cooperate.

Analysts often talk about a U-shaped recovery, where the economy moves strongly upward after dwelling at the bottom for a period.

But this recovery, as described by John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp., could look more like a Nike swoosh, with only a gradual rise back to normal.

Godfather
05-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Wait a second...LAST year?

You mean....when evil baby eating, kitten killing Bush was in the White House?

Actually you raise a good point.

I'd like to dig up a thread from last year and see how many of the people currently mocking Obama also mocked Bush for "token" cuts while spending went out of control.

KeiselPower99
05-08-2009, 10:26 AM
you mean this?- Caution ahead: stimulus slowdowns.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-03-slowdown_N.htm



doesnt sound to me like obama needs to come look at your roads. sounds to me like your state needs to get on the ball and figure out what the hell they are going to do with the money they got.

write your congressmen or governor cause obama already did his part. :sun:

Actually from what the local people are reporting the only roads in West Virginia that are getting any money from the government for road construction is in Berkley County (Martinsburg area).

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 11:09 AM
Actually you raise a good point.

I'd like to dig up a thread from last year and see how many of the people currently mocking Obama also mocked Bush for "token" cuts while spending went out of control.

But, but, but, but . . . . Bush. :coffee:

For the gazillionth time, Bush isn't in office any longer - Obaaaaama is. This thread has absolutely nothing - zip - zilch - nada - to do with FORMER President Bush.

Sorry, Godfather - you're a swell guy, but you Demos really need to stop bringing Bush into every Obaaaama thread as a defense. :doh:

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 12:03 PM
but you Demos really need to stop bringing Bush into every Obaaaama thread as a defense. :doh:

no we dont.

what would the budget be if we werent spending a trillion dollars on bush's war and another trillion to bail out bush's failed economic policies? :noidea:

"we dont talk about bush around here". sounds like scstiller at his dinner party.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 12:11 PM
This would be BEFORE we sunk 2 trillion into bailouts, right? Back when a couple hundred billion still meant something?

Yeah, i probably wouldn't have complained much if Bush cut 200 billion out of a 3 trillion dollar budget. Now if he ADDED a couple trillion in bailout money, then tried to act like 300 billion mitigated that, I'd take GREAT umbrage...

But the point remains. You can't blame Bush for Obama's eff ups...

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 12:21 PM
what would the budget be if we werent spending a trillion dollars on bush's war and another trillion to bail out bush's failed economic policies? :noidea:

Considering that in his first 100 days in office, The Savior has outspent his predecessor in 2 terms in office, I really don't think you want to go there. :coffee:

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Considering that in his first 100 days in office, The Savior has outspent his predecessor in 2 terms in office, I really don't think you want to go there. :coffee:thats just a myth of rhetoric and propoganda that only the sheepublicans believe.

Godfather
05-08-2009, 12:29 PM
But, but, but, but . . . . Bush. :coffee:

For the gazillionth time, Bush isn't in office any longer - Obaaaaama is. This thread has absolutely nothing - zip - zilch - nada - to do with FORMER President Bush.

Sorry, Godfather - you're a swell guy, but you Demos really need to stop bringing Bush into every Obaaaama thread as a defense. :doh:

Thanks--just for the record I'm a registered independent and voted against Obama in both the primary and general elections :drink:

I was just following up on rev's favorite theme--how the D's always praise Obama for doing the same things that were "failed" Bush policies--by pointing out both sides are guilty of that.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 01:09 PM
thats just a myth of rhetoric and propoganda that only the sheepublicans believe.

Really?

So, um.....he's NOT spending like an extra 2 trillion on stimulus (welfare) spending? He's NOT hurling us into unsustainable debt and deficits?
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/032009cdpm1.htm

Read. Really READ. And learn. Please. For the love of Christ, PLEASE! This is the current congress' take. The current DEMOCRATIC congress' reporting here. Notice the 9.3 TRILLION?

Godfather
05-08-2009, 01:35 PM
Really?

So, um.....he's NOT spending like an extra 2 trillion on stimulus (welfare) spending? He's NOT hurling us into unsustainable debt and deficits?
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/032009cdpm1.htm

Read. Really READ. And learn. Please. For the love of Christ, PLEASE! This is the current congress' take. The current DEMOCRATIC congress' reporting here. Notice the 9.3 TRILLION?

We're already stuck with massive, burdensome debt and Obama is throwing gasoline on the fire.

Tony's issue is with the 100 days/8 years comparison which is a rhetorical device that makes it sound even worse. It's bad enough without the spin--no need for us (fiscal conservatives) to be undermining our credibility with Enron accounting.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 01:45 PM
Really?

So, um.....he's NOT spending like an extra 2 trillion on stimulus (welfare) spending? He's NOT hurling us into unsustainable debt and deficits?
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/032009cdpm1.htm

Read. Really READ. And learn. Please. For the love of Christ, PLEASE! This is the current congress' take. The current DEMOCRATIC congress' reporting here. Notice the 9.3 TRILLION?get off of it revs as i PROVE it is you who needs to really read... :coffee:

Considering that in his first 100 days in office, The Savior has outspent his predecessor in 2 terms in office, I really don't think you want to go there. :coffee: again, this is complete bullshit. i would even call it a lie.

president bush spent $21,000,000,000,000 in his 2 terms in office.

http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26426

Section 1. Overall Federal Numbers under President Bush

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending, as seen in Table 1:


In fact, as seen in Table 2, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ.

In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton.

Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.


Conclusion

Republicans often claim to be the party of smaller government. Many Republicans would express support for Ronald Reagan’s observation: “Growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down.”2 Unfortunately, once Republicans are elected to political office, they tend to fall into the Washington trap of assuming that more federal spending will solve the nation’s problems. Certainly, President Bush appears to have fallen into this trap. So did the Republicans in Congress.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argues that we should not be surprised by the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the actual policies of Republicans. Frankel even argues that “the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and bad microeconomics.”3 Frankel is incorrect about the microeconomics—Republicans generally pursue sounder tax policies than Democrats, for example—but when it comes to big government spending, the Bush Administration seems to have gone out of its way to confirm Frankel’s point.




oh ye, of little outrage but much denial, all i can do is sit back and laugh at the deception, hypocticy and blatant double standards... :chuckle:

:popcorn:

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 01:48 PM
We're already stuck with massive, burdensome debt and Obama is throwing gasoline on the fire.

Tony's issue is with the 100 days/8 years comparison which is a rhetorical device that makes it sound even worse. It's bad enough without the spin--no need for us (fiscal conservatives) to be undermining our credibility with Enron accounting.:thumbsup: :applaudit: you beat me to it. :hatsoff: :drink:

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 01:55 PM
Bu...bu...Bush?

Sigh.

Really? You're proving it?

You don't even understand the things you're posting now!

It took Bush 8 years to post a 1.72 trillion dollar deficit. If we DON'T have the Iraq War (resulting from 9/11 no matter which side of the aisle you're on), Bush is probably 500 billion in the black by terms end. In 11 years, CONSERVATIVELY, under Obama's plan, we'll be at 9.3 trillion, probably more like 12 trillion in debt.

So 1.72 over 8 is mere child's play compared to the 10 or so trillion we'll be upside down when Obama is done.

Thanks for "proving" whatever it was you were trying to prove. It clearly illustrates that you and Obama share one thing in common: Neither of you can crunch numbers very well...

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 02:05 PM
bu..bu...bu...if????

really?

If we DON'T have the Iraq War (resulting from 9/11 no matter which side of the aisle you're on),

:rofl:

deflect... lather... spin... rinse... repeat.

the war in afghanistan was due to 9-11.

anyways i proved that bush spent more in his 2 terms than obama has in his 1st 100 days and that reading comprehension escaped you. :mg: anyone can see that.

enjoy! :hatsoff:

(and you tell me i need to read= laughable.)

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 02:09 PM
OK, but we DID have the Iraq War and WE ARE 1.72 trillion in debt. I concede that.

But that does NOTHING to explain why we will be 4-6 times DEEPER in debt at the end of Obama's great plan to save us. It also does nothing to explain how we will be in the biggest hole we've ever been as a country EVER when HE SAID we'd have a balanced budget in what? 10 years?

You've GOT to stop blindly just knee-jerking and defending this guy every time he makes a mistake.

Please address those two points, if you can. No Bush. No deflection. No diversion.

Defend Obama's 9.3 trillion deficit (from the sympathetic Democratic Congress' estimates) contrasted against HIS projected surplus in 10 years. That's 9.3 trillion you need to justify, Tony. No Bush. Just Obama.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 02:16 PM
It IS sort of laughable, though, that I'm telling you what to read.

You don't even understand what YOU'RE reading! You're citing things that work against you, then turning around and thumping your chest after you post them like you've scored some kind of point or something. It's like saying the Lions are better then the Steelers and posting up last years records as proof. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with the mess that your posts have become...you're becoming a caricature of yourself.

In your World, a 1.72 trillion dollar deficit is FAR worse than a 12 trillion deficit based solely on the fact that you like the guy who posted the bigger deficit better.

Now what sense does that make?

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 02:23 PM
You've GOT to stop blindly just knee-jerking and defending this guy every time he makes a mistake.

Please address those two points, if you can. No Bush. No deflection. No diversion.


.you call cutting $17 billion a "mistake"? :sofunny: it is not.

"bindly knee jerking and defending"? lets keep it real. to say that obama has spent more in 100 days than bush did in 8 years, is complete and utter bullshit. that is what is blind.

not only shocking, it is sad that people actually eat up all that crap theyre being spoonfed. i pointed out a blatant lie within the confines of debate.

you can call it what you want to, but it is what it is.

i defended the truth.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 02:30 PM
It IS sort of laughable, though, that I'm telling you what to read.

You don't even understand what YOU'RE reading! You're citing things that work against you, then turning around and thumping your chest after you post them like you've scored some kind of point or something. It's like saying the Lions are better then the Steelers and posting up last years records as proof. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with the mess that your posts have become...you're becoming a caricature of yourself.

In your World, a 1.72 trillion dollar deficit is FAR worse than a 12 trillion deficit based solely on the fact that you like the guy who posted the bigger deficit better.

Now what sense does that make?

:sofunny:

:blah: i.e. "oh no, tony smacked me around a bit in a thread. lets say he cant read and say he's been a caricature of himself and maybe that will deflect attention that he scored a point."

you hate to lose and you hate to be proven wrong even if its on the smallest item. i get that. carry on.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 02:37 PM
:sofunny:

:blah: i.e. "oh no, tony smacked me around a bit in a thread. lets say he cant read and say he's been a caricature of himself and maybe that will deflect attention that he scored a point."

you hate to lose and you hate to be proven wrong even if its on the smallest item. i get that. carry on.

That doesn't even make sense. I've been "smacked around"????

Where?

How?

Huh?

WTF are you talking about?

Alright, back on point. Please defend Obama's 9.3 PLUS deficit vs. Bush's 1.72 trillion deficit.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 02:44 PM
I also wasn't aware Bush was President in 2009.

http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure2_FederalBudgetAnnualGrowth.JPG

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 02:50 PM
again, this is complete bullshit. i would even call it a lie.



Oh really?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers.
President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

:popcorn: Here, I brought one for you too. :popcorn: :wink02:

Godfather
05-08-2009, 03:13 PM
Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations,10.


Now that's a point that could be made stronger. Obama was a Senator for four years and I don't recall him voting against any of Bush's spending, so the shared responsibility should go back to FY 2006.

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 03:32 PM
Tony, are you going to explain/defend Obama's "budget" plan or not?

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 03:38 PM
I also wasn't aware Bush was President in 2009.

http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure2_FederalBudgetAnnualGrowth.JPG:r ofl: are you serious? lets continue this smackdown, shall we?

do you even know what a fiscal year is?

are you really gonna say that Congressional Budget Office data is incorrect?

do you think this chart implies clinton was in office in 2001?

(holy shit, this is hilarious)

take a closser look.... clinton is elected in '92. his first budget is in '94.

the budget for fiscal year oct. '08- oct. '09 is bush's.

http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/documents/2008/bushfy2009budgetbriefanalysis020508.pdf

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08312/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327268,00.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/

obamas budget is for oct. '09- oct '10.

:toofunny:

where?

how?

huh?

thats what im talkin about. BOO-YA!

you do all this talk about getting this thread back on topic. which topic? the one you grossly diverted from with all the 9.3 trillion talk? or the actual real topic that obama was being called an idiot for trimming 17 bil from the budget (which i see HTG is now diverting from by talking about projections in 2019 :yawn:, as opposed to addressing her GROSS miscalculation.

looks like i did want to go there. :wink02:

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 03:38 PM
Of course not!

This is over...and it has been. How much longer is ANYONE here going to accept the whole "Bu...bu...bu..." nonsense.

Obama is exposed. He's listing. The ship is sinking. Public opinion is turning. The guy does NOT know what he's doing and even the most ridiculously biased supporters are starting to scratch their collective heads and think "Hmmmmm, maybe Obama ISN'T the answer?"

I'm surprised it didn't take longer. I mean the guy has only been in office a few months...it took Bush (you know, the "worst President ever) like 2-3 years before they turned on him, and he actually, turns out, KNEW what he was doing!

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 03:45 PM
Oh, I see you posted something else Tony....

Nah, nothing here either but more Bush stuff...

A) Why didn't Obama "shut it down" like Gitmo?
B) Why didn't congress act to change this?
C) Obama was a Senator, right?
D) So, according to you, since this is ALL Bush, we'll see a reversal next year under Obama, right?



Keep trying though, scooter! You''l find some leftie blog somewhere that has something

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 03:49 PM
pipe down there stretch. atleast you learned what a fiscal year was today. :toofunny:

*WHAP* that had to hurt.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 03:53 PM
That's funny...

Fiscal year smack.

I know what a fiscal year is. I know that 2009 is still Bush's year. But you should ask yourself the more important question. Why would I post that chart in the first place? What would I have to gain by showing a 32% growth in government in Bush's last year?

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 03:56 PM
And how could I use that to make Obama look like the hopelessly lost amateur that he is?

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 03:57 PM
Tony, are you going to explain/defend Obama's "budget" plan or not?

Tony, in case you missed it earlier through the other posts...I'm going to quote myself. I don't think that you'd intentionally dodge the outright question...or deflect...or spin (of course not!)
**********************************
Tony, are you going to explain/defend Obama's "budget" plan or not?

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 03:59 PM
(I didn't want to wait....have other things to do tonight)


* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 04:01 PM
Dammit Revs, if you keep posting, he'll nitpick the shit out of you and never answer the question. If there is one word that's misspelled in your post, he'll find it.

Tony, are you going to explain/defend Obama's "budget" plan or not?

Tony, in case you missed it earlier through the other posts...I'm going to quote myself. I don't think that you'd intentionally dodge the outright question...or deflect...or spin (of course not!)
**********************************
Tony, are you going to explain/defend Obama's "budget" plan or not?

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 04:05 PM
THWAP!

(That's me getting smacked around by Tony.....Bwahahahahahaha!)

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 04:13 PM
Dammit Revs, if you keep posting, he'll nitpick the shit out of you and never answer the question. If there is one word that's misspelled in your post, he'll find it.

BWAHAHAHA! i have no problem layin the smack down on you either...

Tony, there's only 1 month between June and August. It's called July. :flap: if youre gonna talk about grammar nitpicking dont be a hypocrite and atleast get it right. :busted: nobody says "the month of june through august."

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 04:15 PM
I also wasn't aware Bush was President in 2009.





I know that 2009 is still Bush's year.

:willy:

backpeddal much?

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 04:19 PM
Wow...just.........wow.

Nothing left at all for the actual issues, and walked right into the trap.

I admire your spunk, though, Tony. You definitely keep fighting even when the battle has long been lost...

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 04:27 PM
If youre gonna talk about grammar nitpicking dont be a hypocrite and atleast get it right. :busted: nobody says "the month of june through august."

You said between, not through. Go back and look.

So basically, though, you aren't going to address the 4.9 Trillion dollars added to the debt?

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 04:35 PM
It's MUCH easier to thump his chest and claim victory over me because I used 2009 numbers.

Funny, though...I had a point to that, and it WASN'T that Bush was President in 2009.

Where is Tony now?

Hmmmm.....curious.

He'll be back, though. He never gives up, even when it's over...

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 05:11 PM
You said between, not through. Go back and look.

So basically, though, you aren't going to address the 4.9 Trillion dollars added to the debt?wrong. once again.

for example-

go back and read pages 35-39.

Translation: go back and read pages 35 through 39.

nobody says "go back and read pages 35 between 39" :busted:


I SAID- the months june- august, and your attempt to be a smart aleck grammar police failed miserably. and you accuse me of being grammar cop?

hilarious. thats not my game. ask somebody. :noidea:

busting people in lies, logical fallacies, and for passing along gross misinformation is.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 05:19 PM
It's MUCH easier to thump his chest and claim victory over me because I used 2009 numbers.

Funny, though...I had a point to that, and it WASN'T that Bush was President in 2009.

...:toofunny:

you use MY numbers that I provided to show bush had spent 21 trillion dollars in his 8 years.

your only "point" (you really had no point or you wouldve actually made one) was a desperate attempt to attach that 32% spike in prez bush's final budget to obama.

:shout:- BLAME!!!!

it failed miserably.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 05:21 PM
I admire your spunk, though, Tony. You definitely keep fighting even when the battle has long been lost...true. you lost the battle as soon as you tried to back HTG's bogus claim.

the rest is just fun and gravy.

revefsreleets
05-08-2009, 05:32 PM
true. you lost the battle as soon as you tried to back HTG's bogus claim.

the rest is just fun and gravy.

Those figures are real.

The deficit numbers are real.

Obama is sinking us WAY past Bush, WAAAAAAAAAAY past Bush.

Please, if you can, defend Obama's MASSIVE deficit inducing budget. And please stay on task.

Budget. Deficit. Obama.

It's easy if you'd only try...

(Well, correction: Impossible if you actually ADDRESS IT, but that won't happen.)

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 05:42 PM
wrong. once again.

for example-

go back and read pages 35-39.

Translation: go back and read pages 35 through 39.

nobody says "go back and read pages 35 between 39" :busted:


I SAID- the months june- august, and your attempt to be a smart aleck grammar police failed miserably. and you accuse me of being grammar cop?

hilarious. thats not my game. ask somebody. :noidea:

busting people in lies, logical fallacies, and for passing along gross misinformation is.

You said between the months of June - August. Not through

So, try again.

xfl2001fan
05-08-2009, 05:43 PM
So basically, Tony, you aren't going to address the 4.9 Trillion dollars added to the debt?

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 05:58 PM
you lost the battle as soon as you tried to back HTG's bogus claim.



Hate to rain on your kool-aid parade, but my claim wasn't bogus as has been proven not only by me, but by others in this thread.

Well - are you going to address xfl2001fan's question or aren't you?

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 05:59 PM
So basically, Tony, you aren't going to address the 4.9 Trillion dollars added to the debt?its a necessary evil. its like re-breaking a bone that wasnt set properly the first time. just consider it an investment in yours and your childrens future.

and revs... obama has NOT spent more in his 1st 100 days that bush did in his entire 8 years. and those numbers she posted in her chart arent "real". its all projections and conjecture leading up til' 2019. i thought obama was going to be out of office in 2013???? :willy:

you guys kill me. all over the place. :chuckle:

if people would quit arguing out their ass and throwing bullshit out there i would have nothing to call them on, now would i?

stick to the facts because i have no problem defending the truth.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 06:21 PM
Hate to rain on your kool-aid parade, but my claim wasn't bogus as has been proven not only by me, but by others in this thread.

Well - are you going to address xfl2001fan's question or aren't you?hate to rain on your parade in fantasy land but bush spent 21 trillion in 8 years. FAR MORE than obama spent in his 1st 100 days.

theres something to be said for admitting you were wrong with grace, but i love all the spin since you guys were tripped up defending that lie.Considering that in his first 100 days in office, The Savior has outspent his predecessor in 2 terms in office, I really don't think you want to go there. :coffee:

your words, not mine. are you gonna address this bs, math and propoganda all the ribsheeplicans cling to?

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 06:37 PM
hate to rain on your parade in fantasy land but bush spent 21 trillion in 8 years. FAR MORE than obama spent in his 1st 100 days.

theres something to be said for admitting you were wrong with grace, but i love all the spin since you guys were tripped up defending that lie.

I'll freely admit that from the link you provided, you are correct.

And there's something to be said for admitting that because you have nothing to defend, you spin and deflect instead. :coffee:

and those numbers she posted in her chart arent "real". its all projections and conjecture leading up til' 2019. i thought obama was going to be out of office in 2013????

Of course they're real. This chart is based on the spending Obaaaaama has done thus far, and the havoc his brain-child stimulus bill and budget are going to wreak for years to come, not only on our children and grandchildren, but on those of us who didn't want this underqualified, dunce of a spend-a-holic in office.

Obaaaaama will be out of office in 2013. Bank it.

its a necessary evil. its like re-breaking a bone that wasnt set properly the first time. just consider it an investment in yours and your childrens future.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You're kidding, right? Have another slice of that bullshit creme pie in the sky, Tony. :shake01:

http://wholebullshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/i_like_pie_sky.jpg

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 06:50 PM
to further expand on obamas budget i will have to try and get very simple for you guys and use analogies that still may fly miles above your heads.

i often hear the republigoats say, that while we are spending tons of money and lives now in iraq it will benefit us 50 years in the future.

well take a page out of your own book and look at obama's budget the same way.

isnt it a good idea if you can spend 10 trillion on renewable energy for the next 10 years if it winds up saving you 100 trillion for the following 50?

its like renting a house vs. buying one.

you can rent a house for the next 50 years of your life for 1000/ month (of course rent would keep going up), or you can buy one for a 1050 on a 30 year fixed loan and save 1000/ month for the remaining 20 years of your life.

the big white elephant that nobody seems to want to talk about is the baby boomers who will all be drawing their social security and medical care.

whose gonna pay for that? dont act like obama fathered all those children.

our population is growing, living longer, and we still have the highest crime rate of any industrilized nation with some of the poorest health care.

who's gonna pay for the end results of that?

this is much bigger than obama and his 4-8 years in office.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Obaaaaama will be out of office in 2013. Bank it.



how can i bank that when it was already summed up so eloquently-



Tony's issue is with the 100 days/8 years comparison which is a rhetorical device that makes it sound even worse. It's bad enough without the spin--no need for us (fiscal conservatives) to be undermining our credibility with Enron accounting.



:hunch:

still funny that instead of admitting you were wrong in the first place, you tried to deflect and spin with some conjecture numbers that stretch out until 2019, even while honestly believing obama wont even be around that long. thats called talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

HometownGal
05-08-2009, 09:45 PM
still funny that instead of admitting you were wrong in the first place, you tried to deflect and spin with some conjecture numbers that stretch out until 2019, even while honestly believing obama wont even be around that long. thats called talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

O M F G. :jawdrop: C'mon - you're more intelligent than this.:doh: The "conjecture numbers" as you call them refer to projections regarding the negative effects and after-effects Obaaaaaaama's economic plans (budget, stimulus, bailout, heavy government spending, etc.) will almost assuredly have not only on Americans in the present day, but long after Obaaaaama is booted out of office in 2013. Why is this so hard for you to get??? :doh:

Nice try but no cigar.

P.S. I DID come out and say in my last post that according to the link you provided, you are correct with regard to the 100 day/8year spending. Not surprising you missed that part of my post, though it was staring you right in the face in my first sentence.

Now - when YOU can man up and admit that you rarely ever address a topic about The Savior head on and instead deflect and spin to draw attention away from any Obaaaaama negativity, you might come across as a little more credible. :flap:

GBMelBlount
05-08-2009, 10:18 PM
its a necessary evil. its like re-breaking a bone that wasnt set properly the first time. just consider it an investment in yours and your childrens future.



I realize you've never even had an economics course Tony, and that is probably why you use this "re-breaking" analogy that is very ....errrrr, ummmmm complex and hard for us less intelligent people to understand.... :chuckle:

So why don't you take a moment and explain why you feel this is an "INVESTMENT" in our children's future as opposed to a debt that is being forced upon them...... to the tune of trillions of dollars of additional spending (and taxes) by an already bankrupt government....that is if you don't mind......

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 10:19 PM
O M F G. :jawdrop: C'mon - you're more intelligent than this.:doh: The "conjecture numbers" as you call them refer to projections regarding the negative effects and after-effects Obaaaaaaama's economic plans (budget, stimulus, bailout, heavy government spending, etc.) will almost assuredly have not only on Americans in the present day, but long after Obaaaaama is booted out of office in 2013. Why is this so hard for you to get??? :doh:

Nice try but no cigar.

P.S. I DID come out and say in my last post that according to the link you provided, you are correct with regard to the 100 day/8year spending. Not surprising you missed that part of my post, though it was staring you right in the face in my first sentence.

Now - when YOU can man up and admit that you rarely ever address a topic about The Savior head on and instead deflect and spin to draw attention away from any Obaaaaama negativity, you might come across as a little more credible. :flap:i dont need a cigar. thanks. :smoker: a marlboro will do me just fine.

now i know you are much, much smarter than to quote a bunch of conjecture and projections as FACT to prove a point.

i didnt need to post a link to prove that bush had spent way more than obama, but i wanted to make it crystal clear to all the cheerleaders you had backing your fallacious stance. (i was thinking prez bush had spent about 3 trillion a year or 24 tril. so i didnt want it to be deflected that i was "wrong" on a technicallity).

as far as "manning up" i took you to task for posting some complete and utter BS. i havent seen any of the cheeleaders around here do that. :cheer:

atleast godfather stepped in with the "assist" but was met with the typical anti-democratic scorn.

in case you havent noticed, there is no "addressing a topic head on" with you guys.

i might as well run into a wall and bang my head. :banging:

i could offer you up the most detailed, perfect, and intelligent response in the world and it would be met with nothing more than this as a response-

http://wholebullshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/i_like_pie_sky.jpg

im not stupid, nor am i gonna waste my time trying to change your mind. the funny thing is, you guys spend so much effort in trying to change everyone elses who dont agree with y'all.

have your fun. but i will keep you guys in checK with the :shout:-PANIC!!!!, and, lies, rhetoric, propoganda etc..

in the name of non-bias and non-partisainship, i think this board deserves atleast that much.

:hunch:

X-Terminator
05-08-2009, 10:51 PM
to further expand on obamas budget i will have to try and get very simple for you guys and use analogies that still may fly miles above your heads.

i often hear the republigoats say, that while we are spending tons of money and lives now in iraq it will benefit us 50 years in the future.

well take a page out of your own book and look at obama's budget the same way.

isnt it a good idea if you can spend 10 trillion on renewable energy for the next 10 years if it winds up saving you 100 trillion for the following 50?

its like renting a house vs. buying one.

you can rent a house for the next 50 years of your life for 1000/ month (of course rent would keep going up), or you can buy one for a 1050 on a 30 year fixed loan and save 1000/ month for the remaining 20 years of your life.

the big white elephant that nobody seems to want to talk about is the baby boomers who will all be drawing their social security and medical care.

whose gonna pay for that? dont act like obama fathered all those children.

our population is growing, living longer, and we still have the highest crime rate of any industrilized nation with some of the poorest health care.

who's gonna pay for the end results of that?

this is much bigger than obama and his 4-8 years in office.

That's all well and good, but there's another "white elephant" in the room as well:

The government itself.

You know as well as I do that whenever the government implements anything, not only do they FUBAR it more often than not, but the spending keeps going up and up and up, to the point where we end up spending far more for less and less service. That is what is happening with Medicare and Social Security right now. It's the same thing with taxes - once the government implements a tax or fee, even "temporary" ones, you can forget about it ever going away. My whole view has not been that we shouldn't spend money on these programs, or even spending money on renewable energy, something that I have been a major backer of for years, BTW. It's that the government is not exactly the model of efficiency and accountability, and yet they keep coming back for more and more money. To put it simply, even if Obama pulls a rabbit out of his ass with his massive spending bill, we're still going to be paying the price for it for years after he's gone, more than likely through tax increases. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see 50% of my money going to the money pit known as Washington for them to piss away into the wind. I'd be better off giving it to the crack addict down the street. It wouldn't be much different.

tony hipchest
05-08-2009, 11:21 PM
That's all well and good, but there's another "white elephant" in the room as well:

The government itself.

You know as well as I do that whenever the government implements anything, not only do they FUBAR it more often than not, but the spending keeps going up and up and up, to the point where we end up spending far more for less and less service. That is what is happening with Medicare and Social Security right now. It's the same thing with taxes - once the government implements a tax or fee, even "temporary" ones, you can forget about it ever going away. My whole view has not been that we shouldn't spend money on these programs, or even spending money on renewable energy, something that I have been a major backer of for years, BTW. It's that the government is not exactly the model of efficiency and accountability, and yet they keep coming back for more and more money. To put it simply, even if Obama pulls a rabbit out of his ass with his massive spending bill, we're still going to be paying the price for it for years after he's gone, more than likely through tax increases. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see 50% of my money going to the money pit known as Washington for them to piss away into the wind. I'd be better off giving it to the crack addict down the street. It wouldn't be much different.
nothing in here i can really argue with. im with you. unfortunately mccain wasnt the answer to these problems. maybe obama wasnt either.

but we get what we got. (im still convinced my guy richardson was more qualified than both to lead this nation).

the govt in the past 8 years reminds me so much of the mobsters in "casino" where las vegas was the war in iraq.

will obama pull a rabbit out of his ass? probably not. are we still headed towards debt hell? you betcha. nothing will stop that. it is the "american way". its what we do. usury is our backbone.

the writing has been on the wall for years and years. i dont know why people all of a sudden started ignoring the writing on the wall and blaming obama.

there is no magic pill.

good luck to those who think palin has it in '12.

but dont expect the crack addict down the road to get off his ass to fix your roads or protect you from the other crack profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityf ilter a few blocks away.

dem bums are really worthless.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-09-2009, 04:42 AM
I bet those crackheads vote Democrat!

Obama's "Stimulus" Bill in transit to Capitol Hill
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/donkey.jpg

SteelersinCA
05-09-2009, 11:23 AM
See and I thought Romney would have been a good choice for his economic credentials but he has to be a bat shit crazy Mormon!:doh:

KeiselPower99
05-09-2009, 06:27 PM
you mean this?- Caution ahead: stimulus slowdowns.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-03-slowdown_N.htm



doesnt sound to me like obama needs to come look at your roads. sounds to me like your state needs to get on the ball and figure out what the hell they are going to do with the money they got.

write your congressmen or governor cause obama already did his part. :sun:

Just to throw this out there also, West Virginias part of the stimulis is in his new budget cuts. Way to put the screws to a states that didnt vote for him aint it?

revefsreleets
05-10-2009, 08:19 AM
Well, one party has a long history of raising taxes and then spending those taxes, and the other doesn't.

Again, I'm sure the Obamaheads will roll out the tired and usual "Bu-bu-Bush" but his deficit doesn't occur with the War, and the FACT is we were going to War with someone after 9/11.

The bottom line is we have a Democratic House, Senate and White House, and, as expected, they are attempting to spend their way out of this problem. Some of us disagree with that kind of fiscal irresponsibility.

55BaileyFan
05-10-2009, 08:40 PM
4 Trillion Dollar budget then wants to cut our F-22 Raptors in his 17 Billion Dollar cuts...Obama is an "F" tard.

Hines0wnz
05-10-2009, 09:44 PM
i guess you dont care to address the 1/3 trillion dollars bush/cheney were lining their buddies pockets with (worthless bastards).


Which ones.....the ones Feinstein helped get through or the ones Pelosi helped get through? :noidea:

tony hipchest
05-10-2009, 10:40 PM
since im watching me some NBA, i'll just say thats like comparing randy brown to m. jordan and s. pippen, when it comes to crediting the bulls for championship wins.

:hunch:

SCSTILLER
05-11-2009, 10:07 AM
Foxnews (I know, faux news, false news, right wing crazies news) just reported that for every dollar spent in the next year, our government will be borrowing 50 cents on that dollar! How big is his budget going to be? Let's just cut that massive number in half and that is how much we are going to be borrowing. Seems a bit much to me!