Obama seeks $100M in government 'efficiencies'

@maporsche,

No, it doesn't. If you have been reading my posts, you'll also know that I don't agree with all the social spending Obama is including now when the primary goal should be to save the banks and finance companies, and stop the bleeding of jobs for the American People. They've taken their eyes off the ball, and I am angry.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I know Cyclops, being president is really, really hard.

I don't know which part of my post your think this is a cogent response to. That ought to tell you something about the quality of your response.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The whole thing. It's really, really, hard to balance what you say you'll do and the reality of the situation.

Gosh, he has to worry about Congress and the public's perception, all while trying to do the right thing.

This time, he failed at doing the right thing, but hey, the guys got a tough job right?

Oh yeah, I guess he did spend over 2 years thinking about taking this job, knowing he'd have to deal with the same people he's dealing with now. And he did make a lot of promises about change in Washington and hope, etc.

This sounds like politics as usual to me, it's unfortunate that that is exactly what the voters were voting against.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

This time, he failed at doing the right thing, but hey, the guys got a tough job right?

What 'right thing' did he fail at?

I also think you should be careful not to hold Obama responsible for McCain's campaign promises, as you did earlier.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

The public's perception is getting confused, because of the tea party demonstrations of late. What was their real message? Do you know? Please explain them to us.

I saw a whole lot of angry people out there complaining about high taxes. Since Obama promised tax cuts for most workers, what are they angry about?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think the message for the TTP were different for every person involved.

I don't mind paying more taxes as long as we're paying as we go. The current tax/spending policies, which has us borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars is what is pissing me off. I wanted to go to a TTP to protest that behavior.

A lot of people are pissed about the income tax cuts to people who do not pay income taxes (and yes, I know they pay payroll taxes), I'm one of them. That and people know that the measly $13 per paycheck isn't going to help them except very marginally. And for 25% of the country who smokes, that has been eaten up by increases in cigarette taxes.

There are too many people in this country who are voting for programs that they are not personally paying for. This doesn't just apply to the people who aren't paying income taxes, this applies to all of us since we're running a huge deficit.

We need to either cut spending or raise taxes until our budget is balanced. This should be made into a law.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

Ok. I'm confused. While I agree with Obama that if there is $100M in waste, it needs to be eliminated, I'm confused about when I'm supposed to care about a measly $100M?

Alot of hypocrisy going on here, maporsche. There are alot of smoke screens and questionable stuff going on right now, and this is one of them. He did this only so that he could say he cut spending, but it was only for show. He has no intention of cutting the budget. His campaign promises, I think were blatant lies.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I think the message for the TTP were different for every person involved.

That's the very reason there were too many mixed messages, and most people responded with "huh?"

If they are really serious about sending a message, they need to make it clear what they are supposed to be complaining about. Hypocrisy goes both ways.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Alot of hypocrisy going on here, maporsche. There are alot of smoke screens and questionable stuff going on right now, and this is one of them. He did this only so that he could say he cut spending, but it was only for show. He has no intention of cutting the budget. His campaign promises, I think were blatant lies

I think that the word you are looking for here is "grandstanding"....as long as this game continues to work for obama you can expect him to continue to use it.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I mean when Bush was in office, $75M was A LOT of money, and every time they asked for another $75Mfor the wars I wanted to puke and I said so here.

just a quick note; when bush went back time after time for those "supplimentals", he was looking, and receiving Billions, not Millions.

since the war in iraq was running +/- 1.6 Billion per Week, his requests averaged 85-87 Billion and on more than one occasion were much higher.

i just saw this, it's kinda interesting;

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/sites/nationalpriorities.org/files/cost_to_community.png

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that the word you are looking for here is "grandstanding"....as long as this game continues to work for obama you can expect him to continue to use it.

That is a kinder and perhaps accurate word. Obama seems to be enjoying the limelight, and I tend to agree with Rush, Obama may actually be buying into the Messiah label somewhat, he perhaps thinks he is Gods gift to mankind right now. And he seems to have no trouble continuing to trample on America wherever he goes. The Americas Summit, he listened to the dictators rant about the United States and all of its sins, and all he could say was that at least he was not blamed, implying I guess that it was all true, but he wasn't at fault. He has no problem with blaming the United States at every juncture. And he talks about talking with your enemies, he thinks that is wonderful, unless of course it is an American conservative, he has absolutely no use for us, I guess he thinks we are more evil than Hugo Chavez, or Ahmadinejad, or Castro, etc.?

0 Replies

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77051/

Quote:

UPDATE: Reader Jeff Scott writes: “Since the President is selling this as a typical household cutting costs, 100 million dollars of a nominal 1 trillion dollar budget is equivalent of a family making $75,000 forgoing two cups of coffee IN A YEAR. Some budget choices.”

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM, The funny part of all this spending for the Iraq war is that the Bush administration and his gang told us it's going to cost "only" $50 billion. They started with no exit plan, and we're still there after six years.

Quote:

Iraq war to cost $ 50-60 billion: budget official
Tuesday, December 31 2002 12:33 Hrs (IST)

New York: The Bush administration's top budget official has revised downwards the cost of a possible war with Iraq to $ 50-60 billion from earlier estimates of between $ 100 and 200 billion.

Director of the office of management and budget, Mitchell E Daniels, would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Iraq. But he said the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier projections of $ 100 to 200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B Lindsey, President George W Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high, the 'New York Times' said.

However, he emphasised that his budget projection does not mean a war with Iraq is imminent, and that it is impossible to know what any military campaign against Iraq would ultimately cost.

"This is nothing more than prudent contingency planning. At this point there is no war," he told the 'Times'.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Bush spent $809.5 billion and still counting. Where was the tea party then?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush spent $809.5 billion and still counting. Where was the tea party then?

Oh, but the point isn't spending. The point is taxes. Obama's raising taxes so that they'll be 10% lower than they were in Reagan's administration, ya know.

We should be able to spend all we want, though.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad, Your ignorance is universal with the rest of conservatives; how many times must Obama tell us that the majority of workers will be getting a tax cut?

How does his tax cuts translate into a tax increase? Please inform us how?

Also, Bush never vetoed a bill he never liked; let us count the ways how he spent trillions and tried to cut more taxes. The national debt increased; you conservatives want to transfer our debt to our children and grandchildren with lower taxes. How do "you" reconcile that?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think you're having another senior moment and missed the real meaning of his post.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

No, it's not anything like a senior moment; playing with different president's tax rates to compare what Obama will do is a foolish game at best, and has no meaning to the issues being discussed.

There is no basis for comparison in any way shape or form - except to conservatives.

Obama seeks $100M in government 'efficiencies'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know