Obama to announce a spending freeze.

[cutthemdown]

No link but heard it on the radio. I'm sure some stories on it after the state of the union speech.

I love it Obama taking a page from Clinton and giving the people what they want. No pentagon cuts but domestic programs like education, entitlements all on the table. National Parks, school nutrition subsidies all of it.

It's a good move and the first positive thing Obama has planned. Let's cut spending down!!!!

Good move and IMO if he follows through it will boost his approval rating. It will with me that's for sure.

Looks like the new adivisors he hired have done the polls and are adjusting there puppet accordingly.

[cutthemdown]

WASHINGTON – Facing voter anger over mounting budget deficits, President Barack Obama will ask Congress to freeze spending for some domestic programs for three years beginning in 2011, administration officials said Monday. Separately, Obama unveiled plans to help a middle class "under assault" pay its bills, save for retirement and care for kids and aging parents.
The spending freeze would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.
The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details. They said Obama was expected to propose the freeze Wednesday night in his State of the Union address.
The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.
The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion,

[JJJ]

This is after raising discretionary spending 10% this year and 12% next year. Token amount he capping really. But it is a start.

[24champ]

Originally Posted by JJJ

This is after raising discretionary spending 10% this year and 12% next year. Token amount he capping really. But it is a start.

Yeah it's a start.

We'll see what else he plans on doing at the SOTU speech.

[SoCalBronco]

It only makes a relatively small dent in the deficit, but I agree with the above comments that its a good start. I definitely support this initiative on his part. In addition to just a flat freeze on the discretionary side, perhaps they should do another National Performance Review (circa Vice President Gore in 1993-4) to see where they can eliminate duplication and waste.

He also needs to do a comprehensive review of the efficacy of defense programs. There are alot of conventional weapons that they can slash there too. We're making too much **** that's not really targetted for the types of conflicts we're going to be dealing with (terrorism). Better to slim down on the quantitative aspect of defense spending, and focus on R&D (qualitative).

This is a nice first step, though and I applaud Obama for it. He's lost alot of credibility on fiscal discipline issues and he needs to start to regain that trust.

[TexanBob]

Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

[Meck77]

That's a good idea but why start with domestic spending cuts? Why not cut out the Billions of foreign aide we give away. Let's start with the billions we hand Israel for more weapons that continually drag us deeper into war.

[Rohirrim]

The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.

Translation: Obama takes the Clinton route - collapse to the will of the Republicans. We are on the edge of a depression and Obama is going to hit the people most in need, children and the elderly, while giving the Wall Street pirates and the military/industrial complex a free ride. Obama emerges from his Clinton chrysalis a moderate Republican. Same as it ever was.

[barryr]

Cutting spending is what should have been done a long time ago. Good he's finally kind of seeing the light, although much too late and not enough either. You don't spend your way out of debt, particularly if that spending doesn't even generate any creation of jobs which it hasn't to this point.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by JJJ

This is after raising discretionary spending 10% this year and 12% next year. Token amount he capping really. But it is a start.

Now all he needs to do is "Roll Back" the Reagan tax cuts and perhaps his base will give him he benefit of the doubt on his bipartisanship with Republican Barbarians and Thugs.

Behaving Clintonian Like still won't endear Republican/support for Obama and the Trojan Horse Republican are only awaiting the chance of Obama weakening himself amongst his base so they can ensure his Waterloo!

Obama doesn't mind being a one-term President. He will leave office w/o the conservative-independent Republican's hating him too much and w/o the wealthiest Republicans trying to go JFK on him.

Now Obama will be worth millions once he leaves office, only in his 50's and go out on speaking tours on behalf of the wealthy moguls who control and run the world.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by barryr

Cutting spending is what should have been done a long time ago. Good he's finally kind of seeing the light, although much too late and not enough either. You don't spend your way out of debt, particularly if that spending doesn't even generate any creation of jobs which it hasn't to this point.

Predatory Capitalism does not create good paying middle class jobs either. But it greatly enhances the likelihood of increasing service sector jobs and ensuring America does not return as a nation that manufactures durable goods and such. Just another example of turning America into a 3rd world Gilded Age Country deluded of a prosperous middle class. America will soon find itself a Nation of the ubber wealthy, unstable non-existent middle class, and serfdom.

Ultimately Barryr this is what you and your ilk want in the long run. Your wish will be coming true soon enough.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.

Translation: Obama takes the Clinton route - collapse to the will of the Republicans. We are on the edge of a depression and Obama is going to hit the people most in need, children and the elderly, while giving the Wall Street pirates and the military/industrial complex a free ride. Obama emerges from his Clinton chrysalis a moderate Republican. Same as it ever was.

I have been reluctant to say this, however, if the Congress buy off on Obama's proposal to cut/freeze spending in this manner.....he will be a one term President. Infact, Obama's body language is saying he only wants to be a one-term President and get out of the WH a relatively young man at 50 something and enjoy the 10's of millions if not 100's of millions of dollars he will earn over the next 10 years after he leaves office.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Meck77

That's a good idea but why start with domestic spending cuts? Why not cut out the Billions of foreign aide we give away. Let's start with the billions we hand Israel for more weapons that continually drag us deeper into war.

Why not cut military spending, weapons procurement, and MIC by 50% as well.

[c_lazy_r]

It doesn't amount to anything unfortunately. Last week congress approved adding 1.5 trillion to the debt ceiling...these cuts would save (per their numbers) 15 billion.

Seems like a PR move to me.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Why not cut military spending, weapons procurement, and MIC by 50% as well.

Because Obama isn't that much different then George Bush. We aren't leaving Iraq and obamabush is expanding the war in Afghanistan. Change! Change! My ass we got change.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Because Obama isn't that much different then George Bush. We aren't leaving Iraq and obamabush is expanding the war in Afghanistan. Change! Change! My ass we got change.

Change doesn't come from Wash-DC, change will come or repealing the Reagan Tax cuts in conjunction with cutting spending will come from the demands of the American voters.

If the people are really serious about cutting down the debt/deficit the only way to do it is to cut across the board, and that includes cutting corporate welfare, repealing the Reagan tax cuts, cut social programs, cut military spending across the board by 50%. If the American can't come together in solidarity to demand this, then they have no room to complain. If main street is expected to sacarifice then wall street the banks and the wealthiest 2% should sacarifice as well.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by c_lazy_r

It doesn't amount to anything unfortunately. Last week congress approved adding 1.5 trillion to the debt ceiling...these cuts would save (per their numbers) 15 billion.

Seems like a PR move to me.

Repealing the Ray Gun tax cuts would generate tax revenues annually in the amount of 1.0 trillion dollars.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Change doesn't come from Wash-DC, change will come or repealing the Reagan Tax cuts in conjunction with cutting spending will come from the demands of the American voters.

If the people are really serious about cutting down the debt/deficit the only way to do it is to cut across the board, and that includes cutting corporate welfare, repealing the Reagan tax cuts, cut social programs, cut military spending across the board by 50%. If the American can't come together in solidarity to demand this, then they have no room to complain. If main street is expected to sacarifice then wall street the banks and the wealthiest 2% should sacarifice as well.

You asked me why Obama isn't cutting military spending. I answered. Now I will ask you the same question.

Why not cut military spending, weapons procurement, and MIC by 50% as well.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Meck77

You asked me why Obama isn't cutting military spending. I answered. Now I will ask you the same question.

Why not cut military spending, weapons procurement, and MIC by 50% as well.

We are in agreement then are we not?

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by rastaman

We are in agreement then are we not?

We actually are but I'm asking you to answer your own question. Obama ran on an anti war platform yet he's refusing to cut any military spending.

WHY?

[55CrushEm]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Repealing the Ray Gun tax cuts would generate tax revenues annually in the amount of 1.0 trillion dollars.

Ummm....no. Do I need to school your sorry ass (again) on the taxes and the effect they have on the economy? Really? Raising taxes kills jobs....period. Taxes are an expense to a corporation, just like office supplies are. And when expenses go up.....layoffs start occurring. You just don't get it. It's economics 101.

Regan cut taxes everywhere when in office. In 1981 total tax revenue coming into the government was around 500 billion.....when he left office, it was around 1 trillion.....a near doubling of REVENUE.

You are really trying to convince people here that RAISING taxes will be good for an economic rebound? You really are clueless......

[55CrushEm]

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates boosts long term economic growth, and reduces the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.

Since 1984 the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. This data shows that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.

Link...

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Learn something about taxes, Rasta, before you continue to illustrate how ignorant you are of them.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

Ummm....no. Do I need to school your sorry ass (again) on the taxes and the effect they have on the economy? Really? Raising taxes kills jobs....period. Taxes are an expense to a corporation, just like office supplies are. And when expenses go up.....layoffs start occurring. You just don't get it. It's economics 101.

Regan cut taxes everywhere when in office. In 1981 total tax revenue coming into the government was around 500 billion.....when he left office, it was around 1 trillion.....a near doubling of REVENUE.

You are really trying to convince people here that RAISING taxes will be good for an economic rebound? You really are clueless......

raygun tripled the deficit during his term. it's funny that repubs are so adamant about tax cuts and then go on b****ing sprees when the deficit goes through the roof.

[55CrushEm]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

raygun tripled the deficit during his term. it's funny that repubs are so adamant about tax cuts and then go on b****ing sprees when the deficit goes through the roof.

Tax cuts don't cause defecits......out of control spending does. I just pointed out to you that tax revenue INCREASED by CUTTING tax rates. It's a concept the left just can't, or refuses, to grasp.

And speaking of funny.....it's funny how the dems complain about defecit spending under both Reagan and Bush....but when Osama trumps Bush by a factor of 4.....then don't care. In other words, defecit spending under a Repub is bad.....but insane defecit spending under Obama is good.

One of the hundreds of the Dems are hypocrites. For the record, I was pissed when Bush began the bailouts. He was no fiscal conservative.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

Tax cuts don't cause defecits......out of control spending does. I just pointed out to you that tax revenue INCREASED by CUTTING tax rates. It's a concept the left just can't, or refuses, to grasp.

And speaking of funny.....it's funny how the dems complain about defecit spending under both Reagan and Bush....but when Osama trumps Bush by a factor of 4.....then don't care. In other words, defecit spending under a Repub is bad.....but insane defecit spending under Obama is good.

One of the hundreds of the Dems are hypocrites. For the record, I was pissed when Bush began the bailouts. He was no fiscal conservative.

the 2 are tied. raygun tripled the deficit with cold war spending and tax cuts that averaged 206 billion a year.then enter dubya who starts wars and then cut taxes. it doesn't make any sense.Now enter obama who had an economy in shambles and he had to make a decision to spend money to prop it backup.what would mccane have done? more tax cuts?