Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Obama Administration To Propose Freezing Non-Military Discretionary Spending

ThinSkin

By ThinSkin
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted
After the $4 trillion the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit, nobody in their right mind should be still clinging to this nonsense.

It is not nonsense at all. First of all, I'm not saying it will in the current situation. I'm saying generally cutting taxes can raise revenue and raising taxes can raise revenue. Both methods (Yes raising taxes too) can also decrease revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hkHog

hkHog

Posted
Posted
Yeah, but let's be honest. Having no money has never stopped a government from increasing spending whether it's Republican or Democratic or even Communist or Monarchial.

Name the last year you can remember where there wasn't an increase in government spending or a year where spending went down?

It wasn't Bush.

It wasn't Clinton.

It wasn't Reagan.

It wasn't George Washington.

First of all you are wrong, government spending did decrease in the '90s.

Secondly, Obama has rung up more debt in ONE YEAR than Bush did in either of his terms as president!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRSmith

DRSmith

Posted
Posted
Why aren't they now? Some can't, some are in jail, because they won't.

That entire system is a joke. If the woman can work and learn a trade, they won't be dependent on the male or the government.

If they are in jail then that money can go to the mom, and for those who won't you have a lien put on them and they do not get the other prvilages like driving until it is all paid up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
As far as I know, this is completely false. What are you basing this on?

You really think accuracy matters? We are talking about the party of that produces a steady stream of similarly themed chain emails and defends the alternative media, that frankly does nothing other than make **** up.

If they want to believe Obama spent our tax dollars are solid gold Clinton bobble heads they will. If you don't allow them to say he did then you aren't being balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
So, what you are saying is that it is only the Dems who ever decrease spending. Interesting.

:hysterical:

Congress controls the purse,not even O can do more than ask for funds or disperse what is under his discretion.

More Americans should recognize that fact and hold them accountable.

added

exhibit A

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the federal deficit this year, despite glaring new figures showing the enormity of the red-ink threat.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax increases and spending curbs to be voted on after the November elections. The measure went down because anti-tax Republicans joined in opposition with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare.

The vote to kill the deficit task force came hours after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted a $1.35 trillion deficit — $4,500 for every American — for this year as the economy continues to slowly recover from the recession.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veretax

Veretax

Posted
Posted
Nice find veretax :)

When I find something that good I have to share, it just seems important, what with the Statist Media ignoring stories like this. However, if you think that's good, then we need to remember that Obama actually campaigned against a Spending Freeze... Don't believe me? Heres an email I sent to some friends today:

Here is a video clip from back before the election, and I believe even as early as last october showing yet another place where Obama's campaign rhetoric ends up not matching up with what he is doing. Saw it on Michelle Malkin's site through Blip.tv's Naked Emperor News

You owe it to yourself to watch this, and remember that just because Obama may seem to be changing course for the moment, it certainly does not mean he will stay the course even past the 2012 election, should he be reelected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

In that spirit;)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/01/obama-spending-freeze-lands-on-hill-with-thud.html

Here’s a sampling of what some lawmakers are saying:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “Why exclude Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs? Don’t tell me there’s not waste in those programs – a lot of waste.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): “At a time when people are going hungry and our educational system is crumbling, do we want to cut back or freeze these programs? No.”

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee: “As much as I want to support the president, I have doubts.”

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT): “I worry about symbolism. They talked about a balanced budget amendment under Reagan and tripled the deficit. Sometimes you need more than symbolism.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): “I am concerned that the people who are most hurting in the country will be hurt by this.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): “I think Defense spending needs to be controlled too.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): Said he likes the idea, but worries that a freeze “prevents you from doing what needs to be done,” in areas such as job creation and energy.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA): “It’s hard to implement … The devil is in the details.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): “My first priority is creating jobs. I don’t want a spending freeze on anything that is focused on jobs.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veretax

Veretax

Posted
Posted
ISen. Pat Leahy (D-VT): “I worry about symbolism. They talked about a balanced budget amendment under Reagan and tripled the deficit. Sometimes you need more than symbolism.”

Man how short a memory some of them had. Reagan had to put up with the spending because the Democrats would not let him actually offset his defense increases elsewhere in the budget, as if Reagan wanted to run deficits on purpose LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
Man how short a memory some of them had. Reagan had to put up with the spending because the Democrats would not let him actually offset his defense increases elsewhere in the budget, as if Reagan wanted to run deficits on purpose LOL.

Short memory indeed. Look at the budgets Reagan proposed. No spending cuts in those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veretax

Veretax

Posted
Posted
Short memory indeed. Look at the budgets Reagan proposed. No spending cuts in those.

According to what I've read that was Reagan's Compromise in order to get the defense appropriations. Yes the budget ended up having huge deficits, but I find it difficult to believe that he wanted them intentionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

He intentionally proposed higher budgets each year. I believe Congress increased his increases, but he kept shooting higher himself. I believe that Bush suffered some of the same afflictions. Really, the only semi-fiscally conscious President most of us have had in our lifetimes was Bill Clinton. A rat of a person, but an above average Pres. esp. when it came to economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...