Posted on 02/26/2009 1:02:13 PM PST by Red Steel
In his address to Congress Tuesday, the President used the term “saved” to discuss money his team has purportedly found to cut from the budget. Nine days later the President is changing his wording, and some in Washington reluctantly agree that there isn’t much saving in these “savings.”
Here is the direct quote from the President on Tuesday: “My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.”
Compare that to what the President said today: “This is a process that will take some time, but in the last 30 days alone we have already identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term.”
In nine days the language changed from “savings” to “deficit reductions.” The meaning of those two terms is very different.
Per the Washington Post: “A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama’s total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars ‘saved’ by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq.”
Consider that. We went from “saving” $2 trillion …. to finding out it is actually just the expected increase in taxes on the wealthy with some war reductions thrown in. So much for “unprecedented transparency.”
(Excerpt) Read more at briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com ...
“Here is the direct quote from the President on Tuesday: “My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time”
Wouldn’t take me much time at all.
it would take me a lot of time to find out the parts of the budget that aren’t wasteful and unnecessary.
Wouldn’t take much time at all:
Put a nice big printout of Article I, Section 8 on a wall chart and go through any spending & programs and cross off all of them that aren’t in the list on the wall.
*sigh*
Journalists still do not get it! When the 2003 tax cuts expire as Obama has promised the entire federal income tax rates go back up to the higher rates of the year 2000. Low income, middle income, and high income are all going to get tax increases. Then Obama is going to double whammy those making more than $250K by uping their taxes for a SECOND time.
“I’ve been over and over this stuff.
It doesn’t add up.
Who does these books? If I ran
my office this way, I’d be out of business.”
Murray Blum, from the movie “Dave.”
Now to the average Publicly educated MAObamabot, that makes perfect sense.
bookmark
“Pie; We want pie; We want pie; We want pie; We...........
O knows exactly what he is doing.
The results might not be what he expects
His “deficit reduction,” occurs in between massive spending bills. What a liar!
Right. Those over 250K will have an effective rate of 40%, which is higher than the Clinton years.
I heard some numbers being floated around that it will result in an increase in revenue by about $340B, just a drop in the bucket compared to all of the new spending and not even close to what is needed to cut the deficit in half. My guess is that figure is optimistic because many of those are falling on hard times right now, and there will be a lot less of them in the future unless they want to get serious and start doing things that are effective to remedy our economic troubles.
That's why you will constantly hear them say that they cannot afford a tax cut.
“When the 2003 tax cuts expire as Obama has promised the entire federal income tax rates go back up to the higher rates of the year 2000. Low income, middle income, and high income are all going to get tax increases.”
...but, but, but that’s not a tax increase. That was already going to happen. [/sarc]
BTW, the media does get it.
By a “wasteful program” he means “any opportunity to tax that we have overlooked in the past.”
By “savings,” they mean, of course, higher taxes.
By “spending,” they mean failing to tax.
Or military spending such as the F-22. This is unbelievably dangerous at a time when China is developing stealth submarines, anti-satellite weapons, military domination of space, cyber-sabotage and cyber-espionage, military nanotech applications etc. etc.
“Obama spent $10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money and all I got from it was a lousy campaign form email begging me for campaign contributions”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.