Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's budget will bring non-security discretionary spending to lowest level in 50 years

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 Donate to DU
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 07:41 PM
Original message
Obama's budget will bring non-security discretionary spending to lowest level in 50 years
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/usa-obama-budget-idUSN1121917520110211

Obama's budget will include spending freeze

Feb 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2012 includes the five-year freeze on domestic spending that he outlined in his State of the Union address last month, a Democratic aide said on Friday.

The aide, briefed on the administration's plans, said the freeze is projected to save $400 billion over 10 years, and bring non-security discretionary spending in 2015 to its lowest level in a half century. Obama will submit his budget to Congress on Monday.

The administration began briefing congressional staffers on Friday on the president's budget.

Members of Congress and financial markets are eagerly awaiting Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget to see the administration's latest forecasts of U.S. economic growth and deficits over the next few years. It also could detail new tax and spending initiatives not previewed in Obama's State of the Union speech to Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now watch states raise their taxes and add new "fees"
I never could understand why people expect to get higher wages at their jobs because "things just cost more now", and yet expect to pay LESS taxes to the government..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w8liftinglady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. nahhh.. in texas,they'll just cut more state programs.
like education,healthcare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does anyone know if they're cutting the defense budget too?
Is it really a good idea when the economy is so sour to do this kind of shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. 2012 defense spending will be higher than in the Bush years or the Cold War
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/11/news/economy/lawrence_korb_defense_obama_budget/

The administration is expected to propose a $78 billion reduction in defense spending over the next five years. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to the story. First of all, the cuts might prove illusory. The federal government appropriates money one year at a time, and the vast majority of that $78 billion reduction would take place in 2014 and 2015, when there will be a new Secretary of Defense and possibly a new president.

In fact, Obama's expected 2012 request of $553 billion would be 5% higher than what the Defense Department plans to spend this year. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this figure is higher than at any time during the Bush years or during the Cold War.

And that's just the Defense Department part of the budget. There's another $30 billion that agencies outside the defense spend to support the Pentagon. The largest share come from the Department of Energy, which uses the money to operate and maintain the several thousands nuclear weapons in the Pentagon's arsenal.

Furthermore, the Defense Department request excludes at least another $100 billion that will most likely be spent next year on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, the government funds the wars separately from the main Pentagon budget...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. That is the only place that isn't getting cut, as far as I have heard
This can have nothing but negative results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, let's say good-bye to the Great Society Programs...
We're headed back to the 1950s. Too bad all our competitors in the world aren't just finally recovering from something like the devastation of WWII.

Not looking forward to a nation which promotes as great progress the right to work without paying union dues, and the right to die if you can't afford heat, food or medical assistance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angstlessk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. NO..in the 1950's the rich paid 90% over a certain income...NOW THEY PAY 35%
NOT THE SAME!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I have an idea on how that might be important, why do you think it is? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. While screwing the poor at the same time
What a coup! The Chamber of Commerce will give him a standing "O".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. The budget cuts all pubs will love and all Dems (except DINOs) hate?
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-11 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. $40B a year?
Edited on Fri Feb-11-11 08:33 PM by RUMMYisFROSTED
:rofl:


You could get 10X that every year via "defense" spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. It is less than the amount that gets "unaccounted for" by the defense department every year n/t
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 Mon May 06th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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