Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The "Spending Freeze" is probably just marketing. Same old "let's clear out waste" with a new name

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:22 PM
Original message
The "Spending Freeze" is probably just marketing. Same old "let's clear out waste" with a new name
No matter who is in charge, they inevitably announce at some point some new initiative to clean up waste from government and focus on "smarter government" and "cutting out the fat" yadda yadda yadda.

IMO, this is the same old stuff, with a new label because that's what they think people want to hear right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. kinda like change you can believe in lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. So Defense increases and they are cutting Domestic programs. I thought we elected a Democrat?
This is some Republican bullshit. Ugh. I'm sick of politics and all this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Where are the cuts?
I didn't hear the word "Cut" being used.

Did you? :shrug:

Please give me some insight on your take,
besides the laments. I'm curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Factoring in inflation and other normal expense increases, a "freeze" is always considered a cut
That's a basic concept in all planning and budgeting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. Democrats haven't been for cutting defense spending since Truman
Carter tried cutting it for a very brief period and then quickly changed his mind. The fact is that if you propose to cut any part of the defense budget some asshole with stars on his jacket will inevitably go on television and talk about how that cut is going to jeopardize national security. And because people are easily frightened and because stars = credibility, the general/admiral will win over the public, especially against a President who has never served in the military.

When somebody figures out a way to make it politically popular or at least politically neutral to cut defense spending, then Presidents will do it. Until then you won't see it happen no matter who is in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Do you like the idea, or dislike it, or what?
no matter the name....

Cause I know, one minute Lakoff should be heeded,
then the next minute its just more yadda, yadda, yadda.

I don't get it. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. Not making any value judgement
Just saying (after hearing one of Obama's advisors being interviewed)that it's more like the usual "let's get expenses in line on a targeted basis" than any major policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Speaking of a freeze, this thread appears frozen.......


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. To me it is PR for the Independents/low info voters who say they are worried about the debt
and deficit at the same time they say they want a jobs program. They want inconsistent, contradictory crap.

Will Congress follow along? Do they ever? Doubt it.

Everybody freaks out over everything like it is the end of the world. Some things truly are big. This is not. It's PR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Are Democrats here that politically totally fucking dumb?
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 10:54 PM by FrenchieCat
Why can't they figure this out?

Why are they just not thinking,
or thinking the worse?

I'm getting tired of the IQ level here....
and I'm not even that smart.

Still, I looked at how much Obama increased the 2010 budget
over Bush's 2009 budget, and let me tell you,
I can live with the giant 8% increase he made.

I think part of why we are gonna get our ass kicked if we do,
is not because of this White House, but because of how ignorant
we are all fast becoming......we don't analyze shit.

Republicans are the ones that should be hating this,
and yet, not be able to say so......
he's neutered them,
and it ain't gonna cost us shit....
there was no announcement at a cut, just a freeze....
based on levels that are quite acceptable.
and yet, we still whine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The outrage overload is constant. It is out of control. Full fledged freak out over every
damn thing. It's ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, Clinton and Gore "streamlined the gov't."
And judging by the surplus they left it worked.

So there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. ReGo! I loved Al Gore...and his $200 hammer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. What I would like to see, is for our
President to "cut out the fat" we are spending on a couple of useless wars, hell of a lot of waste there, "smarter government"? Maybe if about three quarters of our elected officials resigned. Same old bullshit, just new and improved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. It's not an either or proposition......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. No shit?
Wow, pearls of wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Thank God I came through, ...cause for a while, I couldn't find any
wisdom of anykind....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. so, the "cuts" aren't really "cuts"; just as "change" wasn't "change; just hot air! i get it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Who said "Cuts""
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 11:38 PM by FrenchieCat
Do you make shit up and attributed to others?

They are gonna make some cuts here, and some increases there.
They would have the flexibility to do this with numbers remaining the
same as they were in 2010. That's why it is called a spending Freeze,
acuse frankly, that is exactly what they mean....and it is what they said.
and they didn't say ever that they were cutting the budget....
that's what you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
16. War spending isn't included, as expected. Warlords will get all want in the meantime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
17. The more this administration does the more they look like
they are running around in circles and chasing their tails. And they are beginning more and more to resemble republicans. No wonder when Rahm got hold of the presidency he started recruiting those low down and dirty blue dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secondwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
20. Exactly what VP Biden's economic advisor was saying to Rachel Maddow tonight.


They are going to pick and choose where they can find the $$ within the budget, and cut the waste.

I'm willing to give Obama a chance to explain more on Wed., or thereafter.

WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. That interview is what got me thinking along these lines
I have mixed feelings about it.

We do have to draw in the reins. But I fear we're not going to draw in the right reins. Sounds like the service side of government might get squeezed, but those $4 nails for the military will stay intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
23. Sounds to me like they've humped the shark
and no, that's not a typo.

"...because that's what they think people want to hear right now" is literally the consistent M.O. of this operation.

It all makes one just want to withdraw and simply provide for the family and try to survive this unwatchable flailing about.

What he really wants is a stimulating freeze. Yep, that's hot ice and wondrous strange snow, but it's a faith-based kinda world, is it not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Yes a "stimulating freeze" is what they always seem to fall back on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl_interrupted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. Obama has already "Frozen" increases in SS
It's the first time since 1975, SS benefits have NOT been increased. How he can look the elderly and the disabled in the face, and say he is "helping" the middle class, is beyond me.

What's next?


You know it's pretty damn sad when people had to look to Huffington Post and it's "Move your money" for the average citzen to feel like they can take some action against the Banks that are screwing them, instead of a Democratic President and his party for some help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. That wasn't his doing.....
and it is why he gave the one time $250 payment to seniors.

Why do propaganda.....when the truth is so easy to find?


People collecting Social Security have been getting cost-of-living increases since the program to up payments went into effect in 1975. The inflation calculation used to set the increases was negative this year.

The Administration hopes to offset the lack of an increase. The White House website released at statement saying, The Recovery Act provides a one-time payment of $250 to retirees, disabled veterans, and SSI recipients. Over 64 million retirees and other individuals will receive this one-time payment, totaling $16 billion. Congress may not approve the funds.
http://247wallst.com/2009/10/15/no-social-security-cost... /



Background
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are adjusted annually to reflect the increase, if any, in the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The purpose of the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and SSI benefits is not negatively impacted by inflation.

The automatic calculation for whether COLA occurs has been in place since 1975. Since then, beneficiaries have always received a COLA in order to compensate for inflation and to sustain the skyrocketing prices of health care and prescription drugs.

In 2009, due to historic increases in gas prices, Social Security beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent COLA the largest adjustment since 1982. In addition, those receiving Social Security benefits also received a one-time $250 economic recovery payment in May.

Will there be a Social Security COLA in 2010?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting that there will be no Social Security COLA for 2010 due to a decline in energy prices from their historically high levels in 2008.

The Social Security COLA is determined by the change in the consumer price index (CPI-W) between the third quarters of this and last calendar year, published in October. In other words, these projections will not be confirmed until October of this year.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=263534420716


16 October 2009
The Social Security Administration has made it official: no cost-of-living increase for seniors in 2010. Federal law calls for an automatic COLA tied to an average of the Consumer Price Index in the third quarter each year, and theres no inflation to speak of in the economy right now. So, its tough luck for seniorsand good luck with those depressed retirement accounts, home values and soaring health care expenses.

But the odds of a one-time fix are rising. President Obama jumped on the COLA issue the day before the announcement, endorsing a plan already bouncing around Congress to make one-time $250 payments to seniors next year in lieu of an inflation adjustment. He noted that the broader CPI doesnt account for the costs that disproportionately affect older Americans, and framed the payment as a necessary economic stimulus.
http://retirementrevised.com/money/odds-of-social-secur...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl_interrupted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. It was his "doing"
Try dealing with facts instead of fantasy.


$250 is going to make up for it? LOL!


I'll bet you thought the 13 dollars a week was a "big bonus" to the middle class too.

Pretty sad Huffington Post's "Move your money" has a better way at getting back at banks than Obama does, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. So basically, you just throw out the FACTS that I provided on
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 05:09 AM by FrenchieCat
how the COLA is calculated every year, and keep attacking?

Wow! How can you hold your head up, when you've got so much made up shit on your shoulders?

FUCKING READ!

Background
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are adjusted annually to reflect the increase, if any, in the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The purpose of the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is to ensure that the purchasing power of Social Security and SSI benefits is not negatively impacted by inflation.

The automatic calculation for whether COLA occurs has been in place since 1975. Since then, beneficiaries have always received a COLA in order to compensate for inflation and to sustain the skyrocketing prices of health care and prescription drugs.

In 2009, due to historic increases in gas prices, Social Security beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent COLA the largest adjustment since 1982. In addition, those receiving Social Security benefits also received a one-time $250 economic recovery payment in May.

Will there be a Social Security COLA in 2010?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting that there will be no Social Security COLA for 2010 due to a decline in energy prices from their historically high levels in 2008.

The Social Security COLA is determined by the change in the consumer price index (CPI-W) between the third quarters of this and last calendar year, published in October. In other words, these projections will not be confirmed until October of this year.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=263534420716
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Oh so he was the one that created the calculation used to set the increases?
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 05:13 AM by JTFrog
"The inflation calculation used to set the increases was negative this year."

Of course he was. :eyes:

And surely trying to step in and do anything positive about it should just be laughed at.

By the way, the $250 is about 1/2 of what normal COLA would have been for my dad this year. It will help.

Just sayin. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC