Obama seeks $100M in government 'efficiencies'

I thought the strategically placed italics made it pretty clear, but whaddya do.

I'm still flabbergasted at being called a conservative.

Yeah, I laughed at that too.

The point of the tea parties is many faceted. People are more angry now about paying taxes because they see Obama's government spending frivolously, and propping up failed banks and businesses. The see no accountability, and we still don't know where some of the money went. So yes, people are mad about paying high taxes, but what stimulated the tea parties was Obama's policies.

Another bitter pill that most people have not forgotten is the head of the IRS is a tax cheat. It isn't mentioned every day, but count on it, informed taxpayers, including business owners remember this. Business owners have to pay quarterly taxes, and most are very informed about taxes, and they know how much they are paying, plus they see all of what is paid into Social Security and Medicare, which is 15% right off the top, before any income tax is paid. So when cabinet picks plead innocent to knowingly evading taxes, many of us suspect otherwise.

So I believe it is a combination of seeing frivolous spending by the government, with little accountability, high taxes, as well as knowing about all the tax cheats nominated for Obama's cabinet. Add to this the fact that Obama is going to give more money to lower income, technically not a lower tax rate as he claims, and more people are realizing that a higher percentage of people are getting a free ride, while they shoulder the funding of an irresponsible government. In short, they are not happy about more and more income redistribution at their expense. They are working hard, only to see it taken from them and given to somebody else, some of which are irresponsible.

The final straw is Obama looks at the tea party rallies with disdain, and Axelrod criticizes them, the very people that are keeping the government afloat. Obama has no shame. Conclusion once again, Obama is not qualified to be president, his policies are terrible, counterproductive, and destructive, plus very divisive to society. Perhaps that is what he wants?

okie, Please make out a list for us which one of Obama's spending is "frivolous?"
Please show the "frivolous" initiative and how much each will cost, and if you can, provide us with a total of "frivolous" spending vs "non-frivolous" spending.

Thank you.

No problem, ci. In answer to your question, most of it.

Not your government, or the government, but Obama's government? The whole TARP fiasco with no conditions or oversight is Obama's fault, even though it was something the Bush administration put into effect? Right?

You are a blindly partisan fool.

Bush's too. Obama is expanding exponentially what was started.

Care to graph that "exponential" growth?

DrewDad. Thanks for your questions to okie that he is unable to comprehend. LOL

Projected annual deficits are projected to hit 1.8 trillion this fiscal year, far surpassing anything to this point.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/ScRhnGa6PPI/AAAAAAAACik/wgenj_eiInU/s1600-h/federal-budget-deficit.png

Edit: Image tags don't seem to recognize PNG files, so I added a link.

A big peak in 2009 for the economic mess Obama inherited, then things even back out. Hardly "exponential" growth.

I note that the only surplus was during Clinton's administration. That must make you a Clinton fan, right?

Projected annual deficit for this year is based on the current administration and congress' having to revive and sustain our economy - that will actually help Americans. What's your problem?

Technically, "exponential" was the wrong term, mathematically, but the growth is "multiple" or distinctly higher than previous. No, I am no Clinton fan at all, he was one of the worst presidents ever in my opinion, for several reasons, until Obama, but I do grudgingly give some marginal credit to him for reducing deficits, but predominantly it was the Newt Gingrich with the Republican Congress and the Contract with America that I give most of the credit.

Each Democratic president is the worst, ever, eh?

I was right. You're a partisan fool.

Oh, you give credit and you're proud of this Newt Gingrich? LOL
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Parties have platforms and policies, thus I am partisan, I freely and proudly admit it. I suppose you aren't partisan? Is it the partisanship that makes a person a fool, or is it anyone that disagrees with you, or ?

If anyone on this forum claims to be non-partisan, I think their credibility needs close examination.

By the way I did not say "each Democratic president, but I named two specific ones, Clinton and Obama.

Yup, Clinton and Obama. You can foresee the history for Obama's presidency, because you are so smart and knowledgeable about politics. Yup.

Oh? I was a little bummed with that Contract with America. Term limits indeed - till they were elected.

You gladly admit you are a partisan with very little ability at common sense or logic. Who in their right mind would even entertain what kind of rating Obama will receive after he serves as our president?

You are a partisan hack with no brains.