• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ho Will obama Handle 20% Reduction In Spending?

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!

Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?
 
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!

Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?

They could always gut the f-35.
 
Mooshelle?


Confirmed for douchebag.
 
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!

Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?

That is a perfect example of why the president has been crippled by T Party racists. What it all boils down to is that the Republicans are poor losers. When Bill Clinton was elected they immediately began to investigate he and Hillary's activities in Arkansas real estate(Whitewater) and went forward with subsequent investigations into his personal life. Kenneth Starr orchestrated investigations which cost the nation over $100 million and had to impeach over a blow job. They were never able to remove him from office and he left with an approval ranking in the mid 60 percentile.

After losing to Obama they immediately started this "not a citizen" bull**** then after losing to him again in the middle of one of the worst recessions in the last sixty years everything he does gets a protest from all Republicans. The good news is that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and the future doesn't look good for them. Romney only won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under 30 I'd say their strategy is seriously flawed....if they even have one.
 
That is a perfect example of why the president has been crippled by T Party racists. What it all boils down to is that the Republicans are poor losers. When Bill Clinton was elected they immediately began to investigate he and Hillary's activities in Arkansas real estate(Whitewater) and went forward with subsequent investigations into his personal life. Kenneth Starr orchestrated investigations which cost the nation over $100 million and had to impeach over a blow job. They were never able to remove him from office and he left with an approval ranking in the mid 60 percentile.

After losing to Obama they immediately started this "not a citizen" bull**** then after losing to him again in the middle of one of the worst recessions in the last sixty years everything he does gets a protest from all Republicans. The good news is that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and the future doesn't look good for them. Romney only won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under 30 I'd say their strategy is seriously flawed....if they even have one.

Just for clarification everyone. The Tea Party didn't exist when Bill Clinton was in office. That is all.
 
A 20% reduction in spending by Obama would be in areas that caused the most disruption to society as possible, it would not be a cut in waste, fraud and duplicitous departments and jobs.
Totally agree man. Idk why our gov't feels the need to make things painful. I hope, I really do, that isn't what they're doing. I hope that it's just the nature of the cuts. I really do.
 
That is a perfect example of why the president has been crippled by T Party racists. What it all boils down to is that the Republicans are poor losers. When Bill Clinton was elected they immediately began to investigate he and Hillary's activities in Arkansas real estate(Whitewater) and went forward with subsequent investigations into his personal life. Kenneth Starr orchestrated investigations which cost the nation over $100 million and had to impeach over a blow job. They were never able to remove him from office and he left with an approval ranking in the mid 60 percentile.

After losing to Obama they immediately started this "not a citizen" bull**** then after losing to him again in the middle of one of the worst recessions in the last sixty years everything he does gets a protest from all Republicans. The good news is that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and the future doesn't look good for them. Romney only won two demographics...white men and folks over 65. Since whites will soon be a minority in America and since folks over 65 are dying 100 times faster than those under 30 I'd say their strategy is seriously flawed....if they even have one.
Right, and Democrats are guiltless.... Give me a break....
 
Just for clarification everyone. The Tea Party didn't exist when Bill Clinton was in office. That is all.

Actually THEY is the (T)Republican party. Anyone who doesn't understand that should come up with some other reason the government is shut down.
 
The only thing Obama would feel comfortable reducing would be the military...which happens to be one of the few things the Constitution mandates spending on. He seems to think that all he needs is a bunch of drones and a few guys operating them.
 
The only thing Obama would feel comfortable reducing would be the military...which happens to be one of the few things the Constitution mandates spending on. He seems to think that all he needs is a bunch of drones and a few guys operating them.

I guess that explains how Bush got away with starting two wars, one totally unnecessary and doubling the national debt.
 
Since the admin has demonstrated where it likes to apply cuts without a continuing resolution ( monuments, benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, and a few other things) where might they reduce spending without a rise in the debt ceiling? They would have to cut about 20% Id guess since they could only spend what comes in!

Do you think the three white house chefs might get laid off and mooshelle will have to do some cookin for a change?

Unfortunately, the President keeps talking about default so, apparently he has that on the table. It is a bad option. I doubt he will default, however. That talk is just scare tactics. If they can't increase the borrowing they will be limited to revenue plus future borrowing on repaid debt. Actually, that's how it should have been working from the start.
 
They could always gut the f-35.

Good idea and there are thousands more. Cutting 20% from government spending would be very easy. Not politically easy but easy to accomplish. Bring the troops home. No more foreign aid. Stop supporting the UN. Eliminate the depts of education, energy, interior, HEW, Agriculture, Transportation, Homeland Security and put the few essential functions of those departments in other departments. Cut the department of defense in half and stop being the world's police department. End farm subsidies. Kill Obamacare. The list goes on and on and on. It wouldn't be all that hard to cut the federal government in half. And sadly it would perform a lot better if that's what we did.
 
Actually THEY is the (T)Republican party. Anyone who doesn't understand that should come up with some other reason the government is shut down.
Okay. I don't understand it so I'll come up with another reason. The Democrats won't negotiate. How's that?
 
...and this is why the TEA PUUURTY astro-turf movement will fail.

Because it's nothing more than a bunch of people who sit around and listen to faux news tell them everyday that the little pittance they contribute to the treasury ...is lining the pockets of black people on welfare.

All the arguments I've heard ...is just a layer to this core belief.

But more and more it becomes apparent that you people have no ideas ...no real grasp of even basic understanding of how the country works.
All your protest is about ...how can we do things to hurt ..."only those people".

It's so apparent as Bhoener tries to .... shutdown ....some programs ...while keeping the parts fattening the wallets of his corporate donors.

Remember your "CON" game about jobs and those famous .."JERB-CREATORS"...remember that? Please ...please come back with that garbage in 2014 I'm sure Americans will be listening!:roll:
 
I guess that explains how Bush got away with starting two wars, one totally unnecessary and doubling the national debt.

You don't make sense. Would you care to explain what you are talking about and what it has to do with my post?
 
A 20% reduction in spending by Obama would be in areas that caused the most disruption to society as possible, it would not be a cut in waste, fraud and duplicitous departments and jobs.

Close, but not quite. It would be in areas where it was disrupt REPUBLICANS the most. Like contracts with venders who gave more to republican candidates than democratic candidates. Cut some of those contracts, and those companies are going to be beating at the doors of the republican candidates that they purchased, begging them to submit to Obama.

And to states that vote republican, which is actually pretty easy to do since they tend to be the "taker" states, like my state.

I'm not trying to be partisan about this, it's just the way that I see things, it's what I would do if I was POTUS and in this situation.
 
Unfortunately, the President keeps talking about default so, apparently he has that on the table. It is a bad option. I doubt he will default, however. That talk is just scare tactics. If they can't increase the borrowing they will be limited to revenue plus future borrowing on repaid debt. Actually, that's how it should have been working from the start.

You are correct. He would never in a zillion years chose default over shutting down conservative pet spending programs. Like him or not, the guy isn't half the idiot that we tend to make him out to be.
 
The only thing Obama would feel comfortable reducing would be the military...which happens to be one of the few things the Constitution mandates spending on. He seems to think that all he needs is a bunch of drones and a few guys operating them.

How much does the Constitution say we have to spend on the military?
 
How much does the Constitution say we have to spend on the military?

Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Democrats have a long history of cutting military spending...to the point that when we DO need the military, it has been crippled enough to cause problems. Obama is much the same.
 
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Democrats have a long history of cutting military spending...to the point that when we DO need the military, it has been crippled enough to cause problems. Obama is much the same.

If we stop being the world's police we can spend less on our military. Much less.
 
If we stop being the world's police we can spend less on our military. Much less.

shrug...

If we stop being our citizen's nanny we can spend less on entitlements. Much less.

But that's not what this thread is about. It's about what Obama will do.
 
Close, but not quite. It would be in areas where it was disrupt REPUBLICANS the most. Like contracts with venders who gave more to republican candidates than democratic candidates. Cut some of those contracts, and those companies are going to be beating at the doors of the republican candidates that they purchased, begging them to submit to Obama.

And to states that vote republican, which is actually pretty easy to do since they tend to be the "taker" states, like my state.

I'm not trying to be partisan about this, it's just the way that I see things, it's what I would do if I was POTUS and in this situation.

There are rumors that rep owned Chevy dealerships were the ones shut down so you may have a point.
 
Doesn't matter. What does matter is that Democrats have a long history of cutting military spending...to the point that when we DO need the military, it has been crippled enough to cause problems. Obama is much the same.

So even though US military spending is 49% of the entire worlds spending on military, our military is crippled? We can't even defend ourselves? Well golly, then why do we have military bases in 110 countries?
 
So even though US military spending is 49% of the entire worlds spending on military, our military is crippled? We can't even defend ourselves? Well golly, then why do we have military bases in 110 countries?

What we are spending in relation to the rest of the world doesn't matter. What matters is the dead soldiers that resulted from Democratic reductions in military spending.

Look, you can talk all you want about HOW MUCH we are spending on the military, but when it comes to defense there is never a point when we are spending too much. There IS a point when the government is spending too much on things that are not required by the Constitution. It would be nice if Obama had his priorities in order but, like most liberals, he doesn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom