General discussion

Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion

Easy to read graphs. Obama is on pace to spend more in 4 years than George W Bush did in all 8 years, including the war cost. About 25% of that spending is on Welfare costs under Health and Human Resources. Isn't that sort of funny? What "resource" is it supporting other than a modified form of moral prostitution through neo-polygany and neo-polygamy to create a self perpetuating system of dependence on govt handouts? Defense was about 20% of the total yearly cost.
Discussion is locked
Reply to: Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Didn't read your own link, I see

If you had, you'd know that your comment that "About 25% of that spending is on Welfare costs" is not accurate.

From the document:

The bulk of HHS and SSA costs are attributable to major social insurance and postemployment benefits programs administered by those agencies...

In fact I did a search of the entire document for the word "welfare" and came up empty.

- Collapse -
I'm waiting

for the February unemployment numbers to show up since the ones that are coming out for January don't reflect the true number of those unemployed because December had so many temporary service employees working for the holiday season and are now laid off again. February will show those back on the ranks of the employed...and will also begin showing all the military personnel being 'dumped' back into civilian status with no jobs available to them after being pulled from Iraq and being rejected for re-enlistment status. The same will happen with those in Afghanistan as we begin pulling out from there as well. Even though they are part of the spending for their paychecks and their families for their 'upkeep' there will no longer be any of their income being taxed so revenue will also drop. Most of those military will not be eligible for any future pension benefits as they aren't going to be 'lifers' although they will personally be eligible for some type of hospitalization benefit via the veteran's hospitals. After yesterday's BO speech regarding cutting our military significantly, they should be very careful about how quickly these men and women will be 'terminated'.

I read the entire article linked to and was most impressed (frightened actually) by the second to last chart showing 'debt held by the public' projection into 2085, with absolutely no plan in any of the article to keep it from spiraling upward, and yet the spin in the article regarding the 'significant gains' made by this administration from 2009 to 2011 are so 'warm and fuzzy'. That chart alone tells another story...and that one is full of 'icicles, pricklies and knife-wounds'.

- Collapse -
RE: to keep it from spiraling upward,

Cutting expenses....reduce spending on military.

That's one way.

- Collapse -
at least with military expenditures

we get something for the money there, unlike the empty black hole of welfare. Maybe a new combined approach would work, so that any children raised under welfare programs would face a special "welfare based draft system" which would require military service of one year for every 2 they lived under welfare. In that way we could then think of welfare as a promotion program for the military, knowing we'd be getting something back for the money spent eventually.

- Collapse -
What do you get for military expenditures?

You pay soldiers and their families to spend money. You also give money to welfare receipients and they spend their money. Sounds like they are both job creators.


- Collapse -
RE: at least with military expenditures

The Federal Government can make cuts WITHOUT getting State approval?

People want the Feds to cut spending, Feds control Defense spending, that's where to make the cuts....Seems simple enough.

People want the Defense spending to stay the same/increase?

Do what they want individuals that advocate the Buffet Tax to do....send in EXTRA money on their taxes and direct it to Defense.

- Collapse -
I don't understand

You want to reduce government spending, yet you condemn making the military smaller. Where do you want to reduce spending?


- Collapse -
There are tons of

useless or wasteful spending government agencies....

I sure don't want our defense cut in today's times, especially with a president who announces to our enemies timelines on when we will leave an area (Iraq, which is now in the toilet again starting within HOURS after our withdrawal and ending all progress we had been making there, and Afghanistan). To now say to the world that we are dwindling our military to no longer have enough resoures to fight two battles simultaneously leaves the door wide open for the Middle East or China/NKorea or Russia to make moves they might otherwise make. Iran already made plans for their whacked out leader to head to Venezuala...making it a possible repeat of the JFK standoff between the USSR and Cuba incendent and we have a president who won't do a thing to stop it. We already have the smallest military we've had in history, much farther would you take it and be happy?

- Collapse -
And once again I will ask.... does the amount of cash we throw at the military correlate to how adequate, efficient and effective that military is? Why shouldn't "cutting waste" apply to wasteful military spending also?

- Collapse -
To cut waste

anywhere, you have to start with looking at each department of an agency and decide what you can improve upon by eliminating what you don't need. You don't start with a fixed dollar number and unilaterally cut in order to reach that number. There are definitely areas where the Pentagon budget can be cut, but the $450+ amount they are cutting now is in addition to an almost equal amount that was just cut last year, Josh....and yet, this administration continues to ADD departments to the Federal Government that aren't needed and refuses to cut in a good majority of the others. Our defense department is an absolute Constitutional requirement....nothing else is.

- Collapse -
OK, then....

....I assume "each government department" also includes the Army, Navy, etc.?

You know as well as I that some people hear the words "cut the military budget" and start screaming bloody murder without knowing any more than that about it. Republicans constantly use that as a campaign talking point. "_______ cut military spending!!!!" as if that's enough information to blast the opponent on.

- Collapse -
generalities on top of generalities.

We should give you a new military rank of Generality Josh.

- Collapse -
Did you forget

that quickly about my previous post where I said that there are areas of the Pentagon that does need to be cut, Josh? You don't cut an entire department by starting off with a fixed number and then attempt to reach it any way you see the easiest way to do start by scrutinizing each area, cutting as you go, and get to a number. Then you go cut another department/agency the same way. Rather quickly, you can get into the hundreds of billions with just a few departments and keep going. Trillions literally can be cut in a few short years if you go about it the right way and we can get rid of our National Debt. You don't willy-nilly gut the Defense Department just because you think you can, especially when that department is the ONLY one that the Federal Government has an absolute obligation for to this country.

- Collapse -
Who said....

....that he was cutting budgets "willy nilly?" And setting a dollar amount motivates people to reach a goal. I'm sure that amount isn't set in stone, Toni, and I'm also sure Obama didn't tell the Joint Chiefs "just cut any way you think is easiest." Despite what the tin foil hat crowd may think, Obama is not making an effort to put us in danger, nor does he lack understanding of the importance of a strong defense.

Bush I cut military spending also, killing obsolete programs and the like. Sometimes cuts make sense and DO make things better.

- Collapse -
RE Did you forget my previous post where I said that there
Did you forget my previous post where I said that there are areas of the Pentagon that does need to be cut,

AND a couple posts up you say

I sure don't want our defense cut in today's times,

You don't WANT them cut, but you admit there MUST be cuts, and you will ARGUE against any cuts?

My head is going to explode.
- Collapse -

what do you find as "waste" in the military? Is there some weapon system we don't use you'd like to see gone? Some other military equipment we don't use? Be more specific.

- Collapse -
Sorry, James....

.....but I'm not privy to that kind of information. Nice try, though.

- Collapse -
As I worked in the system long ago.

I would love for someone to write about this. It wasn't waste so much but how the system works.

There are many areas to discuss so I'll pick on one called "compartmentalization". It's from The Cold War era and before that. By compartmentalizing the work, few have a complete picture of how the thing works and maybe no idea how what they do or made fits into the system being made.

This lead to waste as one compartment would do their work to spec and ship it to the next compartment when they would re-do the work to their spec.

Some would call that waste.

I think that someone could write a rather long and boring book about this.

- Collapse -
RE: Is there some weapon system
How budget cuts will affect military

Mr. Obama said. Like the army, the 200,000 marines are facing cuts beginning in 2015

2015?....Cuts don't start until 2015, people will start feeling the pain of the cuts this week?

But all signs indicate that U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta will
delay purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The program is one of
the most expensive purchases in U.S. military history: 2,400 aircraft at
the cost of $382-billion;

There have been some leaks of Mr. Panetta's proposed cuts. The 11 U.S. aircraft carriers are not on the list,
- Collapse -
Cuts don't start until 2015, people will start feeling the

pain of the cuts this week?<<<

In case you didn't know about what's happening with OUR country, these cuts are NEW ones in addition to the almost $400B that BO already put into place about a year or so ago. There are many military personnel who tried to re-enlist like normal, just to be told they had to leave...and many who were mustered out early when they weren't even due to re-up yet. The Navy has been hit hard, and Derek got lucky enough to have his re-enlistment accepted five months ago. He has been wanting to make the Navy a career...and not just the usual 20 years...that might not be possible in 2017 when it's time for him to do it again.

Isn't it a little ironic to you that the cost of the F-35 that helps our national defense was sacrificed for the Solyndra deal at the same cost? Doesn't our president's priorities and policies seem a little upsidedown to you? He also just took 1200 National Guard off our southern border......I'm sure the citizens there are just EVER so grateful for his wisdom.

- Collapse -
Is that the 1200 National Guard Obama

authorized in 2010?

- Collapse -
RE: .that might not be possible in 2017

.that might not be possible in 2017 when it's time for him to do it again.

And he had an agreement, when he joined, that it was for life/or as long as HE wanted?

these cuts are NEW ones

What made you think I didn't know that?

There is only so much money to go around, IF you want to spend money on something that MIGHT happen, instead of something that IS happening, you have your priorities all wrong. Whether it is YOUR country or MY country.

- Collapse -
Obama says

He's making the military "leaner and meaner". Isn't it about time welfare recipients were made "leaner and less meaner"? Ever drive by and see the line at the welfare office? They could use some leaning down. I remember in past years a lot of food stamp people coming into stores I worked at and I kept thinking if they ate less, they might not even need the food stamps. Now there's an Obama idea I could embrace if he'd just have that idea, a leaner group of welfare recipients.

- Collapse -

.....comes from WHAT you eat, not just how MUCH. Poor people eat what they can afford, which is often crap.

- Collapse -
USDA info...
- Collapse -
Surprising Indictment of Liberal Lies

Seems those in America under the poverty level on average eat a healthy diet. I guess that just leaves laziness for those big fat mamas (excluding the times they are pregnant).

- Collapse -
RE: big fat mamas

there are some big fat daddys around also.

- Collapse -

You're spoiling James's stereotype.

- Collapse -
Consider something else, Josh...

Josh, consider not just what you eat, but also how you cook it. Many people, with things like chicken or fish, usually lean to breading and frying it. They do it because they love the taste. In Louisiana a lot of people rich or poor not only fry something inexpensive as catfish, but then they use it to make a po-boy sandwich, which is anything but diet food. Breading and frying stretches food, but even when many people find themselves with more dollars in their food budget, they continue to tend to do it for the taste.

- Collapse -

And a lot of people eat that way because those customs have been handed down. I guess it's hard for people to un-learn things like that even if it would be in their best interest to do so.

CNET Forums