Obama Is Really Swinging The Budget Ax--Chop Chop Chop

Seems thta Obama has really cut the spending, $100,000 dollars in 7 months, what is that ooo65%% of the budget?

Now how does that compare to the $1.8 Trillion in new deficit that has been added to the Debt, not counting the $3.55 trillion budget.

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt.

And a projected $17 billion for 2010, and that is a whopping .5%

Obama announces $17 billion in cuts, less than .5% of total budget ...
May 8, 2009 ... All told, the cuts amount to less than half of one percent of the $3.55-trillion budget that the president has proposed for 2010, ...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/08/nation/na-obama-budget8

Yes, a great way to get the economy on track and cut the debt, yes Obama is making such great progress, a whole 1/2 of 1 percent, Obama is really wielding the Budget Ax, and cutting deep and wide.

Yes really :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where would you suggest he cut spending?

What would you economise on in the deficit?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Every un-Constitutional program ever devised by the Government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The main issue is this: What is he or his government planning to invest this money into? I mean the 0.5% of the budget. Because if you invest this money wisely, you could trigger bigger results and this 17 trillion would affect bigger percentages in the medium and long term. If you can not find these critical investment points or areas, this money would also evaporate and make a comical effect as OP suggested. The next policy step will/will not make the difference, not the amount of money or its proportion.

 

by whose understanding of unconstitutional? Yours? constitutional scholars? The begger in atlanta from north carolina who has been their for 8 years? Mine? The supreme courts? The presidents?

 

For example? I don't know the constitutional status of government programs.

You guys should probably take a break from each other for a while. Believe me, I know how easy it is to achieve critical mass in tete a tetes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem from a Keynesian framework is that every cut is...well a cut. Keynesian analysis suggests you need to increase "gummint" spending not decrease it, and Keynes himself said that it doesn't matter really what the program is, so long as the money flows. Keynes suggested was you pay work crews to dig holes and then fill them back in.

Everyone is neo-Keynesian these days, except the Republicans with no say and no accountability whose collective economic philosophy seems to be "I object to Obama and whatever his policies are, even if I agreed with them when Bush did the same thing." Bush was clearly neo-Keynesian too. Even monetarists have fallen largely out of sight (at least in the public sphere).

The cuts are stupid window dressing. It's a try at blunting the "he's not fiscally conservative" argument. The budget and ARRA clearly signal that the man believes that spending to spur growth in Aggregate Demand is his strategy, and the cuts run in opposition to that.

 

Here's a good place to start cutting: the overseas empire and the bloated military. We don't need bases all over the world (costing hundreds of billions of dollars), we don't need a large military, and we don't need to be giving out foreign aid.

 

and how much did bush cut? a whopping 0%
in my opinion .5% is a step forward.

 

Please provide evidence of this alleged rise in our deficit.

 

The problem, from a common sense perspective, is that any jobs generated directly by government spending are purely temporary. Did you see this article regarding the "thousands" of jobs provided by the stimulus package in Oregon; each of which lasted less than a week? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NA4VO3&show_article=1

That's great. We'll stimulate the economy by giving some guys jobs that last about a week. Wow. On thte other hand, when you stimulate the economy by cutting taxes the stimulus lasts and lasts. Every paycheck is a new stimulus package. How is this not superior to a one time injection of government funds?

 

Madanthony you're right but the thing is you can't stimulate the economy. At least, government can't. That's completely artificial and baseless.

Just like Obama's jobs created out of thin air; you can't just "stimulate" the economy, it doesn't work, and it doesn't make sense. If anything it will just cause more long term damage by creating malinvestment.

 

Concur, mostly. If any of the countries overseas want us to maintain our bases there; they can pick up the tab. Otherwise, we're fuckin' out of there. I do think we need a relatively large military able to kick any two or three countries asses simultaneously; but we don't need far flung bases all over the world. Also, we can't afford to be handing out foriegn aide anymore; except in emergencies. It's only right to help out our allies in emergency situations (say, following major natural disasters); but just cutting people a check for regular day to day expenses is wrong.

 

What's wrong? Is our defense too socialist for you?

 

How does some rich fuck increasing his portfollio stimulate the economy?

 

The government doesn't invest money it spend it, there is no Constitutional Mandate for the Government to Invest money.

 

The real problem is that they aren't cuts, What the Politicos cuts is the increase to the programs, and the Government does exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about....Expands and expands until it sucks up every aspect of the Society into it's insatiable maw

 

.Actually the Military is one of the Constitutional mandate, and in all actuality the Military is smaller than ever.

I agree with you about the Bases, it would level the economic field across the world if the Countries, that use our military to cut their defense budget cost, had to pick up that cost in their own Government Budgets.

And the Money we spend in Foreign Aid is again something that isn't Constitution.

 

A step forward? Cuts .5% and adds $1.85 trillion to the Deficit, yes really and just how do you see progress in that?

Add to the fact that Obama isn't done adding to the deficit.

 

Here I agree with you completely, it would have been far more effective to have given the money directly to the people in the form of a Tax Holiday for a year and let the money hit main street the next week rather than pour in down the rat hole's of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and make work government programs that aren't even on line yet.