Obama Pledges Draconian Cuts in Social Programs!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
The President is calling for a 3-year freeze on increases in discretionary spending. This means, essentially every program the government funds with the exception of the military. In 1994, when the Republican-led Congress of Newt Gingrich proposed the exact same thing, the Democrat party immediately deemed it "draconian cuts in social programs" and proceeded to espouse the horrors of what was to come... poor school kids would no longer be getting free lunch and breakfast... to many, this was the only meals of the day... they were literally going to starve the little children to death... heartless bastards! And the old people.... they were going to be forced to eat Alpo! The Democrats persisted to shut down government in protest to this idea of freezing spending! Eventually, republicans caved and gave them the increases scheduled for the upcoming fiscal year.

So now, that all seems to be out the window and forgotten, and a Democrat is proposing it..... and it's a fantastic idea! Seriously, if he means this for real, I may have to change my mind about him! Who would have thought we would share the same views on depriving poor kids free lunch and feeding old people Alpo?
 
Pinhead? Oh Pinheads? Where are youuuuuu????
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Say it ain't so, O! :tantrum:​
 
Dixie said:
The President is calling for a 3-year freeze on increases in discretionary spending. This means, essentially every program the government funds with the exception of the military.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are wrong. What he is proposing concerns less than 1/7th of the budget.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/26/discretionary.spending/

When the White House talks about non-security discretionary spending, it's referring to spending on an array of domestic programs -- everything from agriculture to energy -- that add up to $447 billion of roughly $3.5 trillion in the federal budget.

It does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama's plan to freeze spending would not apply to those or other entitlement programs.

And the federal government does not plan to stop paying interest on the federal debt, a move which would have dire economic consequences. You can remove that from the equation as well.

Obama also would exempt programs tied to defense, veterans or national security from the freeze on spending.
Click to expand...
 
While I think the spending freeze is total shit, he isn't proposing that everything gets frozen at its 2010 level but that non-defense related overall spending will freeze. How the overall amount of money is allocated may change. So, for example, agricultural subsidies can get cut while funding for Head Start increases.

In any event, it's stupid policy and stupid politics.
 
It does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Obama's plan to freeze spending would not apply to those or other entitlement programs.

And the federal government does not plan to stop paying interest on the federal debt, a move which would have dire economic consequences. You can remove that from the equation as well.

Obama also would exempt programs tied to defense, veterans or national security from the freeze on spending.
Click to expand...

All points made by Newt and the Republicans in 1994, when they proposed the EXACT same thing! Democrats wailed on and on about programs that "fell through the cracks" and would suffer dire consequences due to lack of increased funding. This is what led to the images of school kids starving and old people eating Alpo. Those discretionary programs the government provided for, were going to see no increase in funding and this would result in less service available.
 
Dixie said:
All points made by Newt and the Republicans in 1994, when they proposed the EXACT same thing! Democrats wailed on and on about programs that "fell through the cracks" and would suffer dire consequences due to lack of increased funding. This is what led to the images of school kids starving and old people eating Alpo. Those discretionary programs the government provided for, were going to see no increase in funding and this would result in less service available.
Click to expand...


My recollection in that Gingrich and the Republicans were pushing for a balanced budget, not a spending freeze. Those are two very different things with very different consequences.
 
Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.

About half of discretionary spending is spent on security. The Homeland Security as well as the military falls into this one.

267 Billion of the spending last year in this arena was the stimulus spending. And since it is "frozen" will continue at that level. Basically this "freezes" discretionary spending at the inflated rate that Obama has already passed through Congress. He's "frozen" us into deficit spending.
 
Damocles said:
Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.

About half of discretionary spending is spent on security. The Homeland Security as well as the military falls into this one.

267 Billion of the spending last year in this arena was the stimulus spending. And since it is "frozen" will continue at that level. Basically this "freezes" discretionary spending at the inflated rate that Obama has already passed through Congress. He's "frozen" us into deficit spending.
Click to expand...


I don't think that is actually the case at all. Do you have any source for this or are you merely surmising?
 
Dixie said:
The President is calling for a 3-year freeze on increases in discretionary spending. This means, essentially every program the government funds with the exception of the military. In 1994, when the Republican-led Congress of Newt Gingrich proposed the exact same thing, the Democrat party immediately deemed it "draconian cuts in social programs" and proceeded to espouse the horrors of what was to come... poor school kids would no longer be getting free lunch and breakfast... to many, this was the only meals of the day... they were literally going to starve the little children to death... heartless bastards! And the old people.... they were going to be forced to eat Alpo! The Democrats persisted to shut down government in protest to this idea of freezing spending! Eventually, republicans caved and gave them the increases scheduled for the upcoming fiscal year.

So now, that all seems to be out the window and forgotten, and a Democrat is proposing it..... and it's a fantastic idea! Seriously, if he means this for real, I may have to change my mind about him! Who would have thought we would share the same views on depriving poor kids free lunch and feeding old people Alpo?
Click to expand...


Maybe you should wait until the actual plan is laid out before you start in with the neocon bullhorn?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012504052.html
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't think that is actually the case at all. Do you have any source for this or are you merely surmising?
Click to expand...
What? First "I don't think" is surmising... You then highlight easily checked numbers and say I "surmise"... on what? The level it is frozen? I'm guessing because that is the only portion that isn't easily checked.

The current level has his stimulus spending. Pretending that it magically disappears because it is "frozen" at current levels is plain partisan pretense.
 
Southern Man said:
This is like, 3% of his bloated budget. At best its a ruse.
Click to expand...
If you include defense spending discretionary spending makes up 35% of the current budget. If you remove that (as many surmise that defense spending will be excluded or he'll move it off budget like Bush), it is approximately 15% of the budget that will be "frozen"...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Maybe you should wait until the actual plan is laid out before you start in with the neocon bullhorn?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012504052.html
Click to expand...

Hey, I am pleased with this! I hope he is serious and this isn't another one of his LIES, like not raising taxes on those making less than 200k. I'm just wondering why you pinheads aren't moaning and writhing in the streets because of all the suffering which will now be realized because of this. It was the end of the civilized world when Newt and Republicans wanted to do it back in 1994, and it was dismissed by Obama when McCain suggested it during the past campaign... what changed with Democrats? Have you now seen the light on out of control government spending? If this is what Massachusetts caused, I am pleased! It's taken us years to get you people to understand this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top