Obama cuts 100M of "wasteful spending"

[omej]

I know this is a few days old but I didn't have a chance to post this before and really wanted to comment on it.

President Barack Obama on Monday ordered his Cabinet to find ways to slice spending by $100 million....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

Honestly, he's spitting in our faces with this one, 100M. The real kicker is, the next day he announces a $6 billion volunteer program. And here all this time, I thought volunteering was done for free, not with a 12,000 stipend.

To put this into perspective, here is a picture and comparison from The Heritage Foundation.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

I'm really trying to give this president a chance. But he's honestly making it very difficult.

 

[Delta]

Well, I never really follow government budgets and what not because to me, it seems like I don't have much of a choice in the matter anyway.

Looking at this though, this is really something. I'm not sure whether to laugh, or shake my head... it just seems ridiculous. Especially putting it into perspective with the starbucks coffee comparison, kind of makes you wonder - what's the point?

... and the volunteer program. Six billion!? For like you say, something that's free. Does it say specifics as to what kind of volunteering this is targeting?

 

[omej]

Well, I never really follow government budgets and what not because to me, it seems like I don't have much of a choice in the matter anyway.

Looking at this though, this is really something. I'm not sure whether to laugh, or shake my head... it just seems ridiculous. Especially putting it into perspective with the starbucks coffee comparison, kind of makes you wonder - what's the point?

... and the volunteer program. Six billion!? For like you say, something that's free. Does it say specifics as to what kind of volunteering this is targeting?

Specifically, it increases funding for AmeriCorps. The organization itself does many notable things in terms of social work and improving communities, but the problem is the fact that they pay their "volunteers." I just don't understand that part, they might as well as call it a job.

 

[DodgeFB]

This is a very scary dude. And he seems to live in a "make believe" world with the other "KoolAid" drinkers.

 

[The Parakeet]

I don't see the problem. It fits with his model. He found $100 million dollars he could cut, so he did it.

I don't know about the rest of his spending, but every penny counts in the longrun (and $100 million is a good bit of change to put toward his desired programs). It really shows a sense of responsibility that isn't seen much in D.C. He's trying to save money. Would Bush (or any Congressmen) cut spending to help finance a plan? We've been crying out for pay as you go spending for years. Seems like we're grasping at straws for this one.

I don't know about his volunteering thing. He always talked about that being his goal. He wanted to encourage growth in the programs with extra money. I believe that the stipends are just for full-time workers, since they are sacrificing so much to do it. I see nothing wrong with that. In reality, it's basically a free market way of handling local problems. Give some extra money to an established program so that they can do more...seems good to me.

 

[curious]

Specifically, it increases funding for AmeriCorps. The organization itself does many notable things in terms of social work and improving communities, but the problem is the fact that they pay their "volunteers." I just don't understand that part, they might as well as call it a job.

I looked into it at one point. I could work in a bad area of LA, teaching Engllish to immigrants, for a big, resounding, and taxable I think, six hundred dollars per month. We pay Peace Corps volunteers too. For that matter, we pay people who volunteer for the military. We don't say, oh, you volunteered, so you don't get even the pittance we pay now.

 

[curious]

You are reacting as if these are the one and only spending cuts that will be made. And if you had seen an article that said that 100 million dollars of waste could be cut, but Obama had decided it was not enough money to be worth the effort, you would be up in arms about that.

The Republicans made all that fuss about earmarks, and they are a minor, minor part of the budget. It seems to me that small savings are big deal if they are proposed by Republicans, but stupid if they come from Obama.

 

[DodgeFB]

The Republicans made all that fuss about earmarks, and they are a minor, minor part of the budget. It seems to me that small savings are big deal if they are proposed by Republicans, but stupid if they come from Obama.

Makes no difference what Republicans propose. They are powerless. That makes everything on the Democrats and their "wonder boy" president. They might as well face it, they won, it is now their problem.

 

[curious]

By the way, Kant was wrong. Hitler loved animals.

 

[Sparks]

By the way, Kant was wrong. Hitler loved animals.

Poisoned his dog though and had the pups shot.

 

[DodgeFB]

By the way, Kant was wrong. Hitler loved animals.

Maybe Willard Scott will be more politically correct.

You know how bad I want to be "politically correct" at all times.

 

[deanhills]

I know this is a few days old but I didn't have a chance to post this before and really wanted to comment on it.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

Honestly, he's spitting in our faces with this one, 100M. The real kicker is, the next day he announces a $6 billion volunteer program. And here all this time, I thought volunteering was done for free, not with a 12,000 stipend.

To put this into perspective, here is a picture and comparison from The Heritage Foundation.

I'm really trying to give this president a chance. But he's honestly making it very difficult.

Not to forget the 1.2-trillion bail-out package. I still can't get how economists conveniently group budgets and expenditures in compartments, so that one does not have to add them up, or subtract them. Real crooks and liars in my estimation

 

[curious]

Poisoned his dog though and had the pups shot.

Well, he poisoned all the people in the bunker. He killed himself.

 

[curious]

Not to forget the 1.2-trillion bail-out package. I still can't get how economists conveniently group budgets and expenditures in compartments, so that one does not have to add them up, or subtract them. Real crooks and liars in my estimation

It's a form of fraud. They exclude certain categories because if makes the numbers look good. Obama has actually stopped some of that.

 

[deanhills]

It's a form of fraud. They exclude certain categories because if makes the numbers look good. Obama has actually stopped some of that.

Not completely though. One of his undertakings was to make all accounting completely transparent. I would have hoped someone in his administration would have a Website on the 1.2-trillion and the budget, and provide transparent information how and where it is spent, as well as allow for discussion forums by those people he borrowed the 1.2-trillion from. There's plenty of feedback on the wonderful Obama, but not on the 1.2-trillion dollars. To me that is daylight robbery!

 

[curious]

I do think there some rationale for not saying exactly how much money is going to which financial institution for what purpose, as it would reduce confidence in the very institutions they are trying to save.

The budget, though, is public record, isn't it?

 

[deanhills]

I do think there some rationale for not saying exactly how much money is going to which financial institution for what purpose, as it would reduce confidence in the very institutions they are trying to save.

The budget, though, is public record, isn't it?

Surely one should know exactly how 1.2-trillion will be spent, and especially why it is necessary in dollars and cents, than to believe politicians? Governments are notoriously crooks with getting money, and I think the 1.2-trillion is totally unbelievable. Daylight robbery! Imagine going into a Bank and asking for a loan for a business, and the bank will give you a third degree. You have to fill in a lot of forms with very specific questions in it. Yet the Banks did not have to do that? Something smells very rotten in Denmark to me!

 

[DodgeFB]

Surely one should know exactly how 1.2-trillion will be spent, and especially why it is necessary in dollars and cents, than to believe politicians? Governments are notoriously crooks with getting money, and I think the 1.2-trillion is totally unbelievable. Daylight robbery! Imagine going into a Bank and asking for a loan for a business, and the bank will give you a third degree. You have to fill in a lot of forms with very specific questions in it. Yet the Banks did not have to do that? Something smells very rotten in Denmark to me!

Definitely a lot is rotten in Washington, DC.

 

[Glee]

Every time I look at something like this, I cry a little bit more inside.
*sits in the corner and rocks back and forth*

 

[DodgeFB]

Every time I look at something like this, I cry a little bit more inside.
*sits in the corner and rocks back and forth*

There there now. It can be fixed. Someday someone will get in power and undo everything this dude is doing. Just like he is undoing anything he can that Bush did. I guess that keeps us closer to center. Both sides always "overreach" and claim "mandate". Just part of the beast called politics.

You know I can handle a "bad loser" better than a "bad winner".