In a speech containing nearly 20 paragraphs and 1500 words from President Obama, only three paragraphs had any real meaning. These are the three paragraphs:
But we are also called upon to rein in deficits by addressing these and other challenges in a manner that is fiscally responsible. This, in part, requires the kind of line-by-line review of the budget that is ongoing to remove things that we don't need and make the programs we do need work more efficiently. There are billions of dollars to be saved this way. But much of our effort will entail going after the big-ticket items that drive the deficits.
By ending unnecessary no-bid contracts and reforming the way government contracts are awarded, we can save the American people up to $40 billion every year. In addition, Secretary Robert Gates has proposed a badly needed overhaul of a defense contracting system riddled with hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, and the cancellation of superfluous defense systems unnecessary to combat the threats of the 21st century.
We're also going to eliminate unwarranted subsidies currently lavished on health insurance companies through Medicare, which will save roughly $177 billion over the next decade. And this is part of broader health reform, about which I'll have more to say in the coming days, which will both cut costs and improve care.
I ask you, really, who does Obama think he's kidding?
The speech was given to highlight Obama's "commitment" to "fiscal restraint." What a joke. He brought forward a tired idea, he calls "PayGo." If you spend a dollar here, you must save a dollar there, is the ostensible idea.
First of all, Obama continues to use the phrase "line by line review" of the budget. This is ABSURD, as the president does not have the luxury of a line item veto. Sure, he can "urge" Congress to do as he suggests, big deal.
Then he has the temerity to suggest he is going after the "big ticket" items in the budget to really save some BIG BIG BIG cash. Oh brother. I couldn't help but roll my eyes when he uttered those words, because the words "Medicare" and "Social Security" didn't follow them.
Instead he said he'd save $40 billion a year by ending the practice of "no bid contracts," and $177 billion over ten years by ending "lavish subsidies" to health insurance companies.
Come on, is he serious? $40 billion a year (over ten years that's $400,000) and $177 over ten years and you end up with about $600,000 billion dollars. Big deal, that amounts to about one fourth of the current spending commitments, maybe less, who knows. One fourth of two years spending, "saved" in ten years, ZOWIE ! ! !
Obama is a marketing genius.
You only have to spend $2.4 trillion in two years to save $600,000 billion in ten years.
Then, the next paragraph was delivered.
So all told, in the next four years the deficit will be cut in half. Over the next decade, non-defense discretionary spending will reach its lowest level as a share of our national income since we began keeping records in 1962.
I have to wonder how the guy says this with a straight face. I mean, is anyone fooled by this kind of nuanced rhetoric? I suppose there must be those placated by such mendacity, however I find it difficult to believe anyone could be so badly uninformed.
First of all, where does he come up with the "four years" timeline for the deficit to be cut in half? What he mentioned in the speech, doesn't come close to accomplishing that task.
Then he says over the next decade, "non-defense discretionary spending" will reach new lows unheard of since 1962. My jaw dropped, seriously. It is the MANDATOY SPENDING, the so called "entitlements," causing our debt to spiral out of control.
Discretionary spending amounts to about one third of the budget, with MANDATORY spending making up the other two thirds.
Defense spending, in the DISCRETIONARY budget, amounts to about 60% of the budget open to negotiation. Therefore ONLY 40% OF THE DISCRETIONARY BUDGET is what Obama was talking about when he said, "Over the next decade, non-defense discretionary spending will reach its lowest level as a share of our national income since we began keeping records in 1962."
Forty percent of one third of the budget ! ! ! ! IS HE SERIOUS ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
Big deal.....
PayGo?
Just another con job.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
What a mass of garbage. I am sorry you have so little knowledge about what you write, but I am not surprised. Just to take one small example. Going through a budget line by line does not even imply a line item veto, except to people that don't under stand budgets anyway.
You're absolutely right George. It simply means someone will look over the budget and nothing will change. Obama won't buck his people and they hold the congressional purse strings. No Dem and damn few Repubs care enough to curtail any spending so in effect, Obama has spouted off again and actually said nothing.
Georgie Porgie *chuckle* The president doesn't have the authority to go "line by line" through the budget, sorry, but that's the FACT. As I said, he can make "suggestions" to Congress, but so what ???
Your nasty little comment is stupid.
Charles, too bad more people aren't as astute as you are.
Jackie whacky (snigger) The budget is made by the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch can then change it. Now you know something.
Georgie Porgie, you stupid old man, the budget is RECOMMENDED by the Executive. Congress not only "can" change it, they DO change it, without fail.
Congress ALONE, determines where and how money will be spent. Yes, of course Obama will have his input, and his alliances, so what?
The Constitution is clear, Congress holds the purse strings, you moron.
Time needs to pass
Richard, yes-- two years needs to pass to spend $2.4 trillion, and TEN YEARS needs to pass for us to save $600,000 billion. *chuckle*
I don't know, we voted him in for a reason. Besides, he's a seasoned politician. I'm sure he knows more about this than you, no offense.
Jacob, where is it you believe I have erred??? Is my math wrong??? Did I incorrectly quote Obama??? Am I wrong about the difference between mandatory spending and discretionary spending???
What is it you think Obama "knows" that I don't know?
Being a "seasoned politician" gives me no peace, no offense, and I'm not sure how he qualifies for that designation either, as he's only been elected two or three times to any office.
He can say pretty much what he wants to little effect anymore. His hardcores won't jump ship and he has lost most of the indies/mods who had believed his earlier campaign promises. His party claimed that this was what they'd do after 2006 and of course nothing happened.
Its not hard to see what's coming. Japan in the 1990s did virtually everything he has done or is proposing. It's going to get ugly.
The only bright spot is, we're not Japan Charles, otherwise, I might agree.
But we are mimicking their exact same route to "stop the recession" Whether we are Japan or not is immaterial, I never thought I'd see a US president assume control over a US industry in my lifetime either.
Charles, it is hardly "immaterial" our economy is nearly three times as large as Japan's.
It certainly ISN'T "immaterial" our median age is 36 and Japan's is 44.
Lastly, we have a ready supply of cheap labor in the form of Mexicans, that Japan can only envy.
These are only three VERY LARGE differences separating our situation with that of Japan's in the 90s.
You aren't addressing the key issues. Japan did the spendathon, public works, tax games, bailing out of companies (creating the term zombie businesses in the process), shuffling of monies to pay off political interest groups, inflating the debt "away" etc...all of these we are doing and everyone of them trumps what you are saying. Regardless of differences in size/GDP comparisions, we are doing things at a larger scale also.
Your stated differences mean nothing when you look at the issues concerned.
Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?
Your crystal ball readings are duly noted.
he is a politician what do you expect - the truth LOL
well ???
he did come to office suggesting bush was a liar.....
Hello Jack. I'd like to thank you for posting this article at our group, Barack Obama's Presidential Appointments, Bills and Policies. (Join Our Group and Post Your Articles. We Love Opposing Points of Views)
It is now a FEATURED post.
Lloyd
Thanks Lloyd, that shows real character. I'm glad to see you don't hold a grudge.
Jack, we all at times say and do things that we later regret. If everyone I've offended held a grudge against me or if I held a grudge against everyone who have offended me, there would not be any reason for me being a Gather member.
I was wondering where you've been. It was nice to see you back up and posting at our group.
All is well my friend.
I still want to see where the 600,000 jobs are going to come from. All of this spending will be a moot point if North Korea blows up a couple of bridges on the DMZ, or shoots at one of our destroyers.
Kimmie I'll be Ding Dong is a wild card, that's for sure....
rof Jack I call our President Obama Lama Ding Dong- Are they related?HAHAHAHA
could be could be..... *chuckle*
I say make it retroactive, and apply it to all of the money spent on the stimulus plan, as well as the TARP and other bailouts. Heck, go back all the way to when the Dem's dropped it. The only problem with that idea is that O will cut all of the wrong programs, and still raise taxes to fill the gap.
This guy's obviously talking out of his ass. It is remarkable that he isn't being called on it by the major networks. Do they want to be taken seriously? Apparently not, if they're reporting this with a straight face.
Did you hear about the Chinese students laughing in Sec. Geithner's face, when he said something like "your money is safe in America?"
obviously, farts is all we are hearing *chuckle*
Not if you buy bonds, of course.
He makes it sound like he made up the idea of living within one's means. :) He talks about being a fiscal conservative. Funny. He pretends that he has lots to do with what we'll end up with. Funnier still.
And...we all know that rather than cutting any programs, this was an introduction to the fact that he's going to have to raise taxes to pay for all the promises made.