« Obama seeks to double tax law enforcement budget | Main | On Cheney: The HuffPo Gets It Right And Gets It Wrong »

Quote Of The Day

From the Washington Post:

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," Obama said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation."

-Barack Obama speaking of his $17 billion cuts from his $3.4 trillion budget proposal, which amounts to a 0.5 percent "savings".


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35601.

Comments (29)

""We can no longer affo... (Below threshold)
marc:

""We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget,"

Funny, he didn't seem to have that attitude when he signed the porked-up budget that completed funding for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Don't I remember him saying something along the lines of "that was last years business?"

We can no longer afford Oba... (Below threshold)
RScott:

We can no longer afford Obama as president.

But we are stuck with him.

When calculating Obama's ne... (Below threshold)
RScott:

When calculating Obama's net present value, my computer alerts with a 'division by zero' error.

The cuts result in a yearly... (Below threshold)
TrueBlue:

The cuts result in a yearly savings of $17 billion.

Over 10 years the cuts will results in a savings of $170 billion.

More than just a drop in the bucket.

TrueBlue:Do you ev... (Below threshold)
sam:

TrueBlue:

Do you even know how much will be spent in the next 10 years?

$34 TRILLION!!!

$170bn "saved" after spending $34 TRILLION still comes to 0.5%

"We can no longer afford Ob... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"We can no longer afford Obama as president.
But we are stuck with him."

One year and six months until the next general elections, then on the 20th of January 2010 the rebuilding can commence.

If he is such a remarkable smart man then he knows the "0.5 percent *savings*." is a fart in a tornado of debt that he and the Democratic Congress alone are responsible for. He is using this pronouncement to deflect attention from it and to garner good press as if he was 'doing' something.

Well now.That... (Below threshold)
justpassingthrough:


Well now.
That's what I call progress.
Up from 100 million.
Truly a super awesome president.

Another tough day to be a l... (Below threshold)
Larry Dickman:

Another tough day to be a loser. Let's recap:

1) (Not) Joe the (Not) Plumber leaves the GOPosaurs. If you can't hang on to the journalist Samuel Wurzelbacher, what do you have left????????????????

2) Newt with Al Sharpton at the White House today praises your president.

3) Palin's popularity in Alaska drops to 14%. I guess she's no longer the most popular governor in the universe.

I bet you had to go drown a kitten just to get that old GOP feelin'.

Keep digging, Wingnuts. At least you've still got the Really Wingnuts.
depp=true

dickman - Keep diggin' dick... (Below threshold)
marc:

dickman - Keep diggin' dickman.

Sooner or later you might find the time, intellect and friggin' NUTSACK to comment on the actual topic.

By I ain't hopeful.

Oh boo hoo. Asinine post f... (Below threshold)
Larry Dickman:

Oh boo hoo. Asinine post followed by 7 comments, each with 7+ votes. Your mutual love fest cracks me up.

But PLEASE keep doing what you're doing. You've got it all figured out. It's working so well.

2010!!!

BAHHHAHAAAAAHAHAHAH.

"We can no longer afford to... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation."

Now watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. I'll just blame those Republicans in Congress!

So Larry Dickman what's you... (Below threshold)
justpassingthrough:

So Larry Dickman what's your opinion on the president proposed budget?

So let's see.... $100 milli... (Below threshold)
Jake:

So let's see.... $100 million wasn't anything worthy of discussion (agreed). Now $17 billion wasn't anything worthy of discussion. $100 million to $17 billion is a pretty impressive jump in just a few weeks. I wonder if we'll next see the same percentage jump. And I wonder if the Anti-Obamas will scoff at that too.

Now, all that aside, I thought $100 million was a joke when it was first announced, but after hearing that the next step was the $17 billion announced, I have to wonder if the $100mil wasn't a leadership ploy - convince your team that they can do something relatively easy to get them eased in a process. The once they're successful, dial it up and make it more complex, then continue to repeat that process escalating the degree of difficulty until you find a breaking point.

I don't know if that's what's going on, but I sure as hell hope so. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be seeing a half trillion in savings by end of the year?

By the way, taking the percent savings against the overall budget is idiotic. The issue is the percent savings vs. the deficits. To some extent, the budget doesn't matter if revenue is matching that. That's a balanced budget. If we're balancing the budget (i.e. incoming vs. outgoing finances are equal or weighted towards a budget excess) and the country is generally pleased with what we're getting for the spend, who cares how big the spend is?

I don't care what percentage the $17bill is in relation to the budget, I care what it is in relation to the deficit.

"Wouldn't it be wonderfu... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Wouldn't it be wonderful to be seeing a half trillion in savings by end of the year?"

Yes, it would, Jake - and I actually think it COULD happen - if Obama goes "You know what? I think that stimulus bill I signed isn't needed, so we'll take steps to repeal it."

Other than that? No way. He WILL, however, point at all the money saved, the $17.1 bil, and dislocate his shoulder patting himself on the back for how much he 'saved' the country.

"To some extent, the budget doesn't matter if revenue is matching that."

Yeah... if, that is, it's not FUBARing some other section of the economy.

I'm sure that the IRS COULD squeeze a couple of trillion out of the economy this year. It'd hurt like a SOB, but if it were really, REALLY needed we could do it. (Think of a crash project, ala Manhattan and Apollo, to divert an asteroid or something. Massive expenditure to come up with as many possible WORKING ways as fast as possible.)

You could probably do it. Once. But as a regular practice? It'd be like taking multiple pints of blood at one session... not at ALL good for the donor.

Check out the comments here... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Check out the comments here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4998541.shtml

This is hilarious. Die-hard Obamatons in there trying to push the most ridiculous talking points I have heard in a long time -

(1) Show me any GOP president who cut 17 billion! (despite the fact that an example of such is in the article)

(2) Comparing 17 billion to the entire budget is stupid and inaccurate, because what you should be comparing it to is discretionary spending! (.. this is cited repeatedly as if it somehow debunks the ridiculing of the 17 billion in cuts)

These people obviously have no grasp of math whatsoever. They can't even begin to comprehend how they're making complete fools of themselves.

@JLawson said: You could pr... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@JLawson said: You could probably do it. Once.

Which then would be just about what we need, since the admin hasn't said that they consider the Stimulus package concept as a yearly renewal.

Most pathetic hypocritical ... (Below threshold)
914:

Most pathetic hypocritical liar in chief ever. The audacity of stupidity.

It is a little hard to get ... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

It is a little hard to get too excited about $17 billion when we pissed away even more than that with what we gave to GM and Chrysler only for both of them to probably end up in bankruptcy anyways which is what should have happened in the first place. ANYBODY should have seen that coming. How many cars were these companies going to sell in this economic environment when so little credit was available? Yes, some of this money came when Bush was still around but the Democratic-led Congress were the ones really pushing for the bailouts so don't try to shift all the blame away from Obama. Giving that kind of money to failed automakers was ridiculous and that money will NEVER be recovered. And the way Obama is treating investors on this deal (which I believe is a direct violation of the law) while he exercises clear favoritism of the UAW is nothing short of scandalous in my view. I think there needs to be an investigation of this matter and I hope these investors yield better terms in bankruptcy court because there is a principle that needs to be protected here. Private capital is the engine that drives our economy and the actions by Obama threatens the very principles upon which has made our nation the greatest economy the world has ever known.

I see little evidence that this so-called stimulus package has done anything to help this economy either. I think the markets have gone up a little but Wall Street likes it to a certain degree when companies layoff people because they see it as an opportunity for companies to get leaner and meaner. But we are already at unemployment levels nationally that the Obama Administration claimed we would not hit as long as the stimulus bill was passed. How is that working out for us?

Larry,You are so t... (Below threshold)
Shawn:

Larry,

You are so transparent.

You're a hack. "GOPosaurs"? That is straight from the front page of Kos. Literally.

If you don't start offering some pertainent discussion, you just won't be welcome here.

I know you don't care, but, for what it's worth..

For some perspective, let's... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

For some perspective, let's say you went to buy a $10,000 car. The sales person comes back with the paper work and says that unfortunately the car's going to cost you $30,000 vs $10,000, but that there's good news. It was going to cost you $30,150, but they they worked hard and saved you $150 (while ignoring the $20,000 increase).

It's the old scam of "mark it up" so that the "mark it down" seems like the salesman is "working hard for you". Only the mark down in this case is nothing remotely close to the increase.

@_Mike_ -- sorry, but that'... (Below threshold)
Jake:

@_Mike_ -- sorry, but that's a lousy comparison. When I buy the car and agree on a price, I'm done. That's it, no more negotiating, no more saving money. Done. Drive it home, agreeing to pay an agreed upon monthly payment. If my own conditions improve or if the dealership's conditions find other savings, there's a near total inability to continue saving money after the fact.

This type of thinking is what I was referencing before - We're looking at this entire issue as though there's a specific deadline after which no further savings or improvements can happen. Sorry, things don't work like that with the national finances. We can continue to save and earn and cut every single day, day after day. And we should.

Jake: "Which then would... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Jake: "Which then would be just about what we need, since the admin hasn't said that they consider the Stimulus package concept as a yearly renewal."

It's true that only a portion of what was in the "stimulous" package was even sort of, in a leftist way aimed at stimulating the economy, still Obama said he was "saving or creating 4 million jobs". What he meant was he was putting a additional 4 million people on the governments payroll. (The jobs "saved" were just private jobs--like building contractors-- who are now doing government work instead of working the the private sector.)

Those jobs that were "saved or created" are goverment funded jobs. When the government funding runs out the jobs will be lost so the government is going to have to re-authorize that spending EVERY year. And of course the'll tack a couple hundred billion in pork on to every time, but a few hundred billion for cost of living increases.

D'oh- typo's. I meant:... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

D'oh- typo's. I meant:

"And of course they'll tack a couple hundred billion in pork on to every time, plus a few hundred billion for cost of living increases"

Mike you have it right and ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Mike you have it right and Jake just doesn't get it. If Obama next year comes out and spends and "additional" trillion dollars then turns around cut $100 billion, people like Jake will only talk about the $100 billion cut and not the trillion dollar increase. The end result is a $900 billion increase. Sham Wow "we can't do this deal all day" buy yours now.

Jake -"Which th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jake -

"Which then would be just about what we need, since the admin hasn't said that they consider the Stimulus package concept as a yearly renewal."

They haven't YET.

And you apparently missed my point. Doing something like that would be friggin' catastrophic to the economy. It should be seen as a REAL last resort, a way to finance something so extreme and so near-term there's literally no other way to do it.

And I'm not thinking of using it to avoid a political catastrophe, or a financial one, or a 'global warming' one - I'm thinking of something that'd end human life as we know it. As in deflection of comet impact, multiple Tuskungas, Arizona Meteor Craters event sort of thing. Something which COULD be averted, IF we did a crash program, and needed a hell of a lot of money REAL fast.

But for anything less? It shouldn't even be considered.

This is only the start. Ent... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

This is only the start. Entitlement programs account for about 57%, so savings on health care costs are the next area for savings. And some banks will start to repay billions in bailout funds. Off-shore banking schemes by some corporations to avoid taxes are being clamped down on. At some future point there should be significant numbers to show here for all of these and future budget efforts. This is a long process.

I thawt Obie had a food tas... (Below threshold)
Elmo:

I thawt Obie had a food taster? (Don't take the brown mustard). He be trippin if he thinks he can keep shuvlin bullsheet, evra single day of his messianic reign. This will not end well. Time to start prayin ...

That left a bruise, Shallow... (Below threshold)
Larry Dickman:

That left a bruise, Shallow. Good one.

Uhhh . . . did you notice that you quoted right off the front page of the Washington Post?

I would respect this adm... (Below threshold)
MF:

I would respect this admin and Obama more if they would tighten the spending belts and say we are all in this together, times are tough, let's balance the budget and revoke the bailouts and the spending.
Unfortunately they wont and our future's future generation will be paying the price.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy