Whovian
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,153
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- dimensionally transcendental
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
President Obama will call for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending during his State of the Union address to Congress late Tuesday, a White House official told Fox News.
Obama's Republican opponent in the election, Sen. John McCain, supported a spending freeze. In fact, what he proposed sounds an awful lot like the one Obama is suggesting...
We reviewed the transcripts of the three presidential debates and found McCain and Obama jousted over a spending freeze each time...
In the first debate... Obama replied, "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel...
In the second debate... Obama, on the other hand, said it was important "for the president to set a tone that says all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to make sacrifices, and it means that, yes, we may have to cut some spending, although I disagree with Sen. McCain about an across-the-board freeze. That's an example of an unfair burden-sharing. That's using a hatchet to cut the federal budget."...
Finally, the third debate... Obama: "Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It's proposed periodically. It doesn't happen. And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all..."
Obama's answers, on the other hand, never gave any indication that he would embrace the idea of a spending freeze, something that he is doing now.
So we don't find Bernstein's explanation convincing.
We give Obama a Full Flop.
Obama Will Use State of the Union to Call for Five-Year Freeze on Non-Security Discretionary Spending - FoxNews.com
However...
PolitiFact | Obama criticized McCain on a spending freeze
I anxiously await the liberals who were horrified by an across the board freeze, to show their horror now.
cricket... cricket...cricket.
Obama Will Use State of the Union to Call for Five-Year Freeze on Non-Security Discretionary Spending - FoxNews.com
However...
PolitiFact | Obama criticized McCain on a spending freeze
I anxiously await the liberals who were horrified by an across the board freeze, to show their horror now.
cricket... cricket...cricket.
Ya know, this would be laughable i it wasn't so serious.
"I know, that were uh, spending too much, so uh, well I think. I think the best thing we could do is uh, freeze spending!"
How about a 10% across the board cut in spending for the each the next 5 years?
Wouldn't a freeze mean no cuts could be made in the next 5 yrs?
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spokesman Don Stewart expressed cautious optimism about the proposal.
"At first blush, it appears the president has realized his budget requests have been too big. We'll wait to see the details," Stewart said.
I think this from the story sums it up:
2)Tax credits and subsidies to big energy
and farms.
And why is it just non-security? How about freezing or cutting any unnecessary or wasteful military spending?
Yep. And tie the hands of our next President in 2013.
Obama Will Use State of the Union to Call for Five-Year Freeze on Non-Security Discretionary Spending - FoxNews.com
However...
PolitiFact | Obama criticized McCain on a spending freeze
I anxiously await the liberals who were horrified by an across the board freeze, to show their horror now.
cricket... cricket...cricket.
I have never had an issue with a spending freeze, due to a recession. The thing I tend to take issue with is when people try and argue that such spending is not needed in the first place. Also, I think once the recession is over and the budget is in check, we should also look at new spending again.
This one single statement, shows why we should never ...ever … ever … put liberals in office again.
This one single statement, shows why we should never ...ever … ever … put liberals in office again.
Eh, when you say "non-defense discretionary spending" you're talking about a very small portion of the budget. It's a start, I guess, but when the **** are we going to take a serious look at defense spending and non-discretionary spending?
Yeah, because those conservatives have really proven to be against spending increases!
When it comes times for history to judge him as a man and President I'll look at what he said and did, and how they may have contradicted over the years.
But I'm not going to say a man is wrong for doing something I like because he did something I didn't like in the past, while he's President I'll judge each action separately and give them my support or disapproval based on each individual action.
For those who like Obama's spending freeze idea, at least more than his previous spending run, please SUPPORT IT. It should be net budget reduction even if some areas are receiving more money. Even if its not perfect we can all agree tightening the government is better than nothing, even if its not done exactly how we'd like it, its still more productive to support an action which goes forward but perhaps slightly to the left than supporting standing still. And in the next election vote against if you choose to do so, but don't stand in the way of something that's productive and moves in the direction you want simply because its not perfect or the Pres is a Dem.
Yeah, because those conservatives have really proven to be against spending increases!
And this single statement shows why we should never...ever...ever put conservatives in office again.
So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade.
But the freeze appears largely symbolic. It won't affect the major contributors to the federal deficit: Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. It also won't apply to interest payments on the federal debt, homeland security or foreign aid -- the latter being a favorite target of small government advocates, though it represents a tiny share of government spending. The plan would save a modest $26 billion over five years, the White House says.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?