• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to propose spending freeze

I agree. And your numbers show the root cause of the problem. Let's take a deeper look.

Cutting Medicaid brings about a hissy fit from the over 65 crowd. They are the most vocal group in America. And they fund the AARP, the most powerful lobbyist organization in America. So how does a politician cut Medicaid? They don't if they want to keep their jobs.

That doesn't really reflect on whether it would be good policy in the abstract, which is what I was getting at. As I noted, almost none of this is likely to be cut in the short term.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Medicaid/Medicare are untouchable, they will become very touchable over the next 8-15 years when they start dragging ever-increasing amounts of money from the general budget.

Welfare. We spent about 4 years under Clinton and a GOP Congress cutting the welfare rolls (remember welfare to work?) and most people will tell you it's now harder to cut any more. Even the GOP couldn't make deeper cuts when they had control of both houses for 6 years.

Much like they couldn't make cuts to Medicare/aid. Everything is possible, it's just a question of political feasibility.

Social Security. Completely untouchable and you know that. The AARP will rip the head off of any politician that goes near it. Even Bush and the GOP got slapped when they tried to privatize a tiny percentage of it.

See above.

DOD. Again almost untouchable for the GOP and the Dems. We have such a macho "John Wayne" mentality in America about our military that anyone who cuts defense spending is considered a wimp.

See above.

So where does that leave us? You don't want to cut DOD spending, but no one else wants to cut anything else either. And that's the root of the problem. Everyone has an excuse for not cutting spending. Yours is that cutting DOD spending won't amount to much.

Where did I say I don't want to cut DoD spending? I do want to cut DoD spending - I'm simply noting that even with that, we won't be doing a damn to fix the real problems that we're facing.
 
Often when a Person's back is against the wall, they will do things they don't want to do.
 
Actually he's not lying. It's a spending freeze. Small yes. Temporary yes. But still it's a freeze.

Would you prefer Obama continue to increasing spending?
Guarantee: He -will- continue to increase spending.
There will be -no- overall year-to-year decrease in federal spending under The Obama.
 
Guarantee: He -will- continue to increase spending.
There will be -no- overall year-to-year decrease in federal spending under The Obama.

I would love to disagree with you. Unfortunately I cannot. But I'll take even a temporary half-ass spending freeze for now. It's better than an increase.
 
I would love to disagree with you. Unfortunately I cannot. But I'll take even a temporary half-ass spending freeze for now. It's better than an increase.
As I said:
While we have to start somewhere, to try to pass this off as anything of significance in an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
 
I take this with a grain of salt. When politicians say that they are going to reduce spending, or freeze spending, what they really mean is that they are going to reduce the rate of growth. But what about the ruinous spending that is already in place? I didn't hear him say that he was going to reduce that. And, since this does not apply to certain programs, such as Homeland Security, it appears to me that overall spending will still actually increase.

Way to talk around the Q, and your use of smoke and mirrors, Mr. President.
 
I take this with a grain of salt. When politicians say that they are going to reduce spending, or freeze spending, what they really mean is that they are going to reduce the rate of growth. But what about the ruinous spending that is already in place? I didn't hear him say that he was going to reduce that. And, since this does not apply to certain programs, such as Homeland Security, it appears to me that overall spending will still actually increase.

Way to talk around the Q, and your use of smoke and mirrors, Mr. President.
There's no question that overall spending will continue to grow.

And really -- $250B/10yrs = $25B/yr. This 'reduction' in speding is meaningless.
 
Obama to propose spending freeze - Glenn Thrush and David Rogers - POLITICO.com



This is pretty surprising. Given the shifting national attitude, it looks to be that rare convergence of good policy, good timing, and good politics.

What it really looks like is that the Democrats' pee-pee is hurting from the whacking the voters gave it with the Brown election, and they're trying to steal a conservative position to con voters that the leech really can change his spots.

Most voters are aware that leeches don't have spots.

Also, discretionary spending is a drop in the bucket, growth in unconstitutional entitlements is what's killing us.
 
I take this with a grain of salt. When politicians say that they are going to reduce spending, or freeze spending, what they really mean is that they are going to reduce the rate of growth.


Isn't that what it has always been about with these progressives? I mean just take a look at what he proposes doing to the banks right now? popular? yes. Pragmatic over populist? Hell no. And all the liberal anti capitalist rhetoric going on now, think that is a mistake, or a byproduct of the agenda? I say agenda.


But what about the ruinous spending that is already in place? I didn't hear him say that he was going to reduce that. And, since this does not apply to certain programs, such as Homeland Security, it appears to me that overall spending will still actually increase.


Homeland Security is "ruinous spending"? Please explain further. And ofcourse the current track is going to push forward, and push us deeper in debt, that is the plan. Plouff isn't returning for a reunion. One of his first statements was that Obama needs to press full speed ahead. Reminds one of the Titanic.



Way to talk around the Q, and your use of smoke and mirrors, Mr. President.


Why still listen to a liar.


j-mac
 
Perhaps, but he made deficit spending A-OK by precedent with his needless, wasteful Iraq War.
The war in Iraq ciost less per year than the -growth- of entitlement spending.
 
Well this could be a good start. However, America isn't going to be able to get rid of it's horrendous debt levels unless it makes significant cuts to it's ridiculously large military. Just ain't gonna happen.

Always the left picking on the military.

The biggest single item on the US budget is Socialist Security, followed by several other completely unconstitutional programs.

Sure the military budget should be assessed, but the other programs should be eliminated.
 
Isn't that what it has always been about with these progressives? I mean just take a look at what he proposes doing to the banks right now? popular? yes. Pragmatic over populist? Hell no. And all the liberal anti capitalist rhetoric going on now, think that is a mistake, or a byproduct of the agenda? I say agenda.





Homeland Security is "ruinous spending"? Please explain further. And ofcourse the current track is going to push forward, and push us deeper in debt, that is the plan. Plouff isn't returning for a reunion. One of his first statements was that Obama needs to press full speed ahead. Reminds one of the Titanic.






Why still listen to a liar.


j-mac

I'm not going to be a political hack about it. It isn't just the Liberals who pull this crap. While in office, Bush claimed to be reducing the deficit, while in practice, he actually tripled it. Both parties are guilty as hell, so finger pointing, just because the only thing you are looking at is not the practice itself, but the letter next to the name (D or R), is not helping here.

If Obama wants to be honest, he should just man up and tell the truth. By the same token, there are plenty here who were dishonest enough to refuse to criticize Bush when he was doing exactly the same thing. Where were they when Bush was in office?
 
I'm not going to be a political hack about it. It isn't just the Liberals who pull this crap. While in office, Bush claimed to be reducing the deficit, while in practice, he actually tripled it. Both parties are guilty as hell, so finger pointing, just because the only thing you are looking at is not the practice itself, but the letter next to the name (D or R), is not helping here.

If Obama wants to be honest, he should just man up and tell the truth. By the same token, there are plenty here who were dishonest enough to refuse to criticize Bush when he was doing exactly the same thing. Where were they when Bush was in office?


Ofcourse Bush was doing the same thing, and I'll go one step further and agree with you that BOTH parties are infiltrated with a sickness. It's called Progressivism! I may argue more on the republican side of things, and even will wear the moniker of partisan, but if you think for one moment that I thought that the spending undertaken by congressional repubs that tore the party apart and force a monumental loss of government then you are sadily mistaken friend.


j-mac
 
Actually he's not lying. It's a spending freeze. Small yes. Temporary yes. But still it's a freeze.

Would you prefer Obama continue to increasing spending?

I think it's good that he is wanting to freeze some things, but I think it would be better if he stopped pushing debt growing policies and repealed stimulus spending that hasn't been spent yet. I think this is a good small step, but I think Obama is mainly doing it for political purposes and in response to MA electing Senator Brown.He knows America is fed up with the budget, so he is trying to manipulate the masses into believing he is trying to fix the deficit and debt when he really isn't. It's all about his popularity, not about doing what is good for the country.
 
If President Obama is indeed making the same mistake Bush has during his two terms, it better not be biased.
 
Last edited:
... but I think Obama is mainly doing it for political purposes and in response to MA electing Senator Brown.He knows America is fed up with the budget, so he is trying to manipulate the masses into believing he is trying to fix the deficit and debt when he really isn't.
Do you think that anyone (anyone that is not already inebriated on The Omaba's kool-aid, anyway) will see this $25B/yr spending 'cut' as meaningful, and not the political ploy that you describe?
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aLbV3CHvU"]YouTube- Krauthammer: "Best Week I've Had Since Spring Break in Medical School - & I Don't Even Remember It"[/ame]



:rofl:2wave:


j-mac
 
Well they must have been whispering their complaints.

I don't who the "they" are you're referring too, but many Americans were complaining about the socialist nature of the GOP under Bush.

Hell, most of us were against Bush before he was elected because only a damn liberal could make his "compassionate conservatism" comment or promote anything as stupid as "aid to faith based charities". Also, his "No Child Left Behind" scam was done in complete collusion with the now happily deceased and replaced drunken Liberal Lyin' of the Senate.

No honest assessment of the Bush presidency can conclude he was anything but left of center, and that's why, ultimately, it failed. Just like Obama is a failed president.
 
I think it's good that he is wanting to freeze some things, but I think it would be better if he stopped pushing debt growing policies and repealed stimulus spending that hasn't been spent yet. I think this is a good small step, but I think Obama is mainly doing it for political purposes and in response to MA electing Senator Brown.He knows America is fed up with the budget, so he is trying to manipulate the masses into believing he is trying to fix the deficit and debt when he really isn't. It's all about his popularity, not about doing what is good for the country.

Give this man a see-gar, he sees the big picture.
 
Do you think that anyone (anyone that is not already inebriated on The Omaba's kool-aid, anyway) will see this $25B/yr spending 'cut' as meaningful, and not the political ploy that you describe?

I think some will, they will take the president at his word and not look deeper into the issue. There are a lot of people like that. People will see it as a step in the right direction, when in reality it's just a ploy to buy popularity in order to restore some faith in his administration or allow him to focus on his policy ramming before elections in November.

Give this man a see-gar, he sees the big picture.

Why thank you :smoking:
 
I knew that as soon as Obama proposed something in relation to controlling the deficit, those who cried the loudest about the deficit would still find ways to bitch, so I am not at all surprised by the way this thread has gone. I think some of you need to admit you really don't care about the deficit, you just want to bitch about Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom