By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama to Cut Budget by $17 Billion

To put this into perspective, if the government was a person who was earning $50,000 per year and spending $100,000 per year this budgetary cut would be just under $500 ...

Now, when the government starts issuing $1.7 Trillion in treasury bills to cover the speninding in the 2010 budget how will they be able to sell them? Either they need to entice people to buy 4 times as much in treasury bills as they did a couple of years ago (by raising interest rates) or the federal reserve will use quantitative easing (money printing) to buy the debt themself (resulting in high inflation). Assuming their interest rate only becomes a modest 5% the ammoung of money required to service the debt from the deficit in 2010 would be in the range of $85 Billion, which is 5 times the ammount Obama cut from the budget ...



Around the Network

$317,000,000,000 on f**king defense???? seriously??? I bet that could pay for just about every other military combined, it's so much. Surely it would not hurt to cut $100,000,000,000 or so out of that?

--edit--

Turns out I'm right, and then some.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif



highwaystar101 said:

$317,000,000,000 on f**king defense???? seriously??? I bet that could pay for just about every other military combined, it's so much. Surely it would not hurt to cut $100,000,000,000 or so out of that?

--edit--

Turns out I'm right, and then some.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif


The more advanced your technology the more you need to spend on techonlogy and equipment.  Also we have one of the bigger militaries in the world in general... largely because we need it.

 



17 billion in cuts is nothing in comparison to whats actually spent. Wake me up when they actually learn to how spend less.



highwaystar101 said:

$317,000,000,000 on f**king defense???? seriously??? I bet that could pay for just about every other military combined, it's so much. Surely it would not hurt to cut $100,000,000,000 or so out of that?

--edit--

Turns out I'm right, and then some.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif

 

There are dozens of countries around the world, that don't get invaded because of our military.

Policing the world is expensive, and when the world resents you for it, I personally think it's time to stop doing it.



Around the Network

And some of the posts in this thread have once again proved that its not how much the government spends that makes people upset, it is what the government spends that money on that makes people upset.

By any stretch of the imagination, our military spending is out of control. Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, wholeheartedly agrees.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
And some of the posts in this thread have once again proved that its not how much the government spends that makes people upset, it is what the government spends that money on that makes people upset.

By any stretch of the imagination, our military spending is out of control. Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, wholeheartedly agrees.

 

There are (basically) 3 responsibilities of a federal government that only they can do; foreign relations, international trade, and national defence. (Practically) everything else can be handled by individuals or lower levels of government, typically more efficiently while offering choice for people. If, in the middle of two wars, your military represents (less than) 20% of your budget this should be a sign that there is a MASSIVE PROBLEM with the other 80% of your budget ... if your Military is approaching 10% of your budget and you're running a deficit at (roughly) 50% of your budget you should (probably) look at cutting all other expenses in half.



HappySqurriel said:

 

There are (basically) 3 responsibilities of a federal government that only they can do; foreign relations, international trade, and national defence. (Practically) everything else can be handled by individuals or lower levels of government, typically more efficiently while offering choice for people. If, in the middle of two wars, your military represents (less than) 20% of your budget this should be a sign that there is a MASSIVE PROBLEM with the other 80% of your budget ... if your Military is approaching 10% of your budget and you're running a deficit at (roughly) 50% of your budget you should (probably) look at cutting all other expenses in half.

Agree! That's our problem in this country. Our federal government is involved in way too many things it's not supposed to be.

 

 



HappySqurriel said:
akuma587 said:
And some of the posts in this thread have once again proved that its not how much the government spends that makes people upset, it is what the government spends that money on that makes people upset.

By any stretch of the imagination, our military spending is out of control. Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, wholeheartedly agrees.

 

There are (basically) 3 responsibilities of a federal government that only they can do; foreign relations, international trade, and national defence. (Practically) everything else can be handled by individuals or lower levels of government, typically more efficiently while offering choice for people. If, in the middle of two wars, your military represents (less than) 20% of your budget this should be a sign that there is a MASSIVE PROBLEM with the other 80% of your budget ... if your Military is approaching 10% of your budget and you're running a deficit at (roughly) 50% of your budget you should (probably) look at cutting all other expenses in half.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  But everyone has to be willing to make sacrifices.  We need to get rid of all the sacred cows in terms of balancing the budget.  That includes comprehensive entitlement reform, an overhaul of all federal programs, and cuts in defense spending.

This is what I am saying: If you claim to be fiscally conservative but then complain when we address our defense budget problems when people in both parties, including John McCain and Robert Gates, say there is a major problem, it makes you much less credible and verges on hypocrisy.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

highwaystar101 said:

$317,000,000,000 on f**king defense???? seriously??? I bet that could pay for just about every other military combined, it's so much. Surely it would not hurt to cut $100,000,000,000 or so out of that?

--edit--

Turns out I'm right, and then some.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/07/wa_japan_milexp_graph_new.gif

 

 

umm.... that is kind of important. i would rather be in a country thAT is in debt then one that has a subpar army