It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to propose freeze on government spending

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Obama to propose freeze on government spending


www.washingtonpost.com

Under mounting pressure to rein in mammoth budget deficits, President Obama will propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security, a concession to public concern about government spending that could dramatically curtail Obama's legislative ambitions.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
Bloomberg: Obama to Propose Three-Year Freeze on Some Spending
Reason Magazine: Obama to Propose Three-Year Spending Freeze
Huffington Post: Obama Spending Freeze: President To Propose Three-Year Discretionary Spending Freeze

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama's first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy.


Holy cow, what an about-face! All government spending cut, except for the money going to defense?


A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


-Dwight D. Eisenhower

I wonder what the fall-out will be. Defense contractors are obviously relieved, but what about the other corporations that are assimilated into a pseudo-governmental corporatism plutocracy?

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
All he is proposing is freezing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

That means no increases in Social Security payouts to recipients and a reduction in Medical Care. That is what he has been after all along. This is subterfuge of the worst kind, but then this Administration is all about just that.

If he meant this at all, he would immediately take all the remaining TARP Funds and pay them towards the debt. I don't think many will fall for this. The media he controls will pretend to not realize this, but those who are paying attention will not.

Smoke and Mirrors. He has hundreds of Billions allocated and hidden away for his real plans. Freezing a portion of the budget for three years won't change any of that.

He is really saying, damn, these people are smarter than I thought, lets find a new shell game to try and see if they figure this one out.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, couldn't it be used to fund all that the government has now said it will cut? I mean, the Fed prints the money the government uses and recirculates the worthless paper throughout the welfare states...might as well come out and say, "yeah, we're cutting spending but our friend Mr. Bernanke has got a pocket full of change ready to distribute!"



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes


The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).




If we gotta fix a deficit, I got a few ideas where to start!


If he meant this at all, he would immediately take all the remaining TARP Funds and pay them towards the debt. I don't think many will fall for this. The media he controls will pretend to not realize this, but those who are paying attention will not.


Good point on the TARP funds, but I imagine that our buddies over at Goldman Sachs have already staked a claim on that, one way or another.

Oh, here is a real eye opener:


According to a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the money sought by the Defense department as well as President Barack Obama's 2010 budget -- which excludes money for ongoing war efforts -- would outpace Reagan's defense spending at its peak.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a blog post that the Defense department's proposed budget would require some $573 billion in spending per year between 2011 and 2028. That request is seven percent more than what Obama requested in his administration's regular 2010 budget.

"The projection also exceeds the peak of about $500 billion (in 2010 dollars) during the height of the Reagan Administration’s military buildup in the mid-1980s," Elmendorf explained. "During that period, for example, DoD was pursuing a Navy fleet of 600 battle force ships, more than twice the size of the current fleet of 287."


Obama spending more on defense than Reagan had at peak

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I wonder if this makes the stocks plummet. Obama is really breaching into a lot of untested waters. It shouldn't be frozen, it should be reorganized.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by OpenYourHead]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


Wait, um, der, I don't have to throw away my 'Obama is a facist socilist commie' sign, right?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
All he is proposing is freezing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.


I don't think so, Blaine. Those three are exempt:



But it would exempt the Pentagon, foreign aid, Veterans Affairs and homeland security budgets, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


Source



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Blaine91555
All he is proposing is freezing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.


I don't think so, Blaine. Those three are exempt:



But it would exempt the Pentagon, foreign aid, Veterans Affairs and homeland security budgets, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


Source


Found that out on this mornings news. An article I read last night said the opposite, so I stand corrected.

That means he is going to do some meaningless cuts not amounting to anything. More smoke and mirrors. He needs to get a Vegas act.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Of course he's freezing spending, there's no mo money left!




posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


Actually the littler secret that government doesn't want the tax payer to know, most of the defense budget appropriations is not solely for military spending but more than half is for all the private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan right now the conflict of interest is growing causing the military to be in disadvantage as who actually runs both wars in the ground.

Beside that Obama freezing spending is a good idea as long as it for government spending, but then again who are the ones that will be opposing to this spending, nobody else but congress.

Why spending can not be stop right now? because that is how America is surviving, while the regular economy supporter the consumer is not spending the government has to fill the void, if government freeze spending inflation will take over.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Nobama freezing spending is akin to a person not using their credit cards. It will do nothing to solve that person's debt problems. And this will do nothing to stem the tide of massive debt and deficits. It's a dog and pony show. Obama is desperate and it shows. He's an empty suit. And Americans are getting tired of him and he's only been in offcie for a year. LOL. He's a joke of a president. We've a lawyer, a C student good old boy, and another Lawyer responsible for running our country the last 20 years. What the hell do we expect?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Won't the argument, though, become backwards here?

Let's say that we cut spending, instead, on defense, such as for Homeland Security. Would it then come back to bite them in the ass if terrorists attacked the country?

I think our defense is too important to cut spending. That plays a pivotal role in protecting our country.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto


I think our defense is too important to cut spending. That plays a pivotal role in protecting our country.


According to the Official Story.

It only takes 20 bucks worth of box-cutters to beat the defences.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by Mak Manto


I think our defense is too important to cut spending. That plays a pivotal role in protecting our country.


According to the Official Story.

It only takes 20 bucks worth of box-cutters to beat the defences.

Well, I think some questions still need to be answered, but this can't be a situation where it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't."



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Our security? What security? Our southern border is WIDE OPEN! If a bunch of two bit drug dealers can build tunnels to ferry drugs through right under our noses what makes you think some well funded intelligent terrorists can't smuggle bombs and suit case nukes through our border with Mexico? And dont think for a second mexican drug dealers are above working together with muslim extremists. Our country is NOT more secure because we have 700 bases in 100 countries. If our country wanted to worry about protecting its citizens we would seal the southern border and arm it with Marines.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
He probably ran out of printing ink or paper.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Our security? What security? Our southern border is WIDE OPEN! If a bunch of two bit drug dealers can build tunnels to ferry drugs through right under our noses what makes you think some well funded intelligent terrorists can't smuggle bombs and suit case nukes through our border with Mexico? And don't think for a second Mexican drug dealers are above working together with Muslim extremists. Our country is NOT more secure because we have 700 bases in 100 countries. If our country wanted to worry about protecting its citizens we would seal the southern border and arm it with Marines.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

I didn't mean the many bases across the globe. While we have to stop immigrants from coming into the country, we still need a defense budget, Zo.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 



I think our defense is too important to cut spending. That plays a pivotal role in protecting our country.


Our defense budget is bloated and continues to skyrocket to absurd amounts. As Marg pointed out earlier, "most of the defense budget appropriations is not solely for military spending but more than half is for all the private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I posted two charts earlier that show the amount of money we spend on defense. The only reason that it is this high is so "Disaster Capitalism" can take advantage of it, a near complete privatization of modern warfare. The results are never very good, and the companies involved have shown themselves to be a corrupt violent group of warmongers. Sourcewatch has a list of the 10 Worst Profiteers of 2004

1. Aegis Defence Services
Aegis has had a marathon of defense contracts from the Pentagon, running from $293 million to $430 million and finally $475 million. I wrote an in depth look at Aegis here: Profiles in Military Contracting: Aegis Defense Services. Their origins and the history of their funder, Tim Spicer, is questionable, to say the least.

2. BearingPoint, Inc.
Bearing Point is a division of KPMG, which was implicated in the Enron scandal. Their contracts are worth, in succession, $79.5 million, $3.95 million, $39.9 million, $45 million, $58 million and $124.7 million.

3. Bechtel
You can pretty much blame Bechtel for this entire mess. In the 1980s, Bechtel's made in the Reagan administration, George P. Schultz, sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam Hussein over a proposed oil pipeline that the company wanted built. In exchange for his help, the US gave Saddam chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds and Iranians, as well as money, arms and training to fight the Iranian regime. The US was arming and funding Iran at this same time through Iran-Contra.


CorpWatch wrote in 2003, George P. Schultz, Bechtel board member,

"used his political connections to lobby on behalf of a military invasion of Iraq. Bechtel received a request to bid on the reconstruction of Iraq before the invasion even began in a secret, undemocratic process. The contract itself has still not been seen by the Congress, much less the American public. Bechtel has once again used its revolving door to benefit itself and its friends at the expense of the majorities of the world's people and the planet."


4. BKSH and Associates
BKSH was hired to help Blackwater in their legal defense during the volley of court action taken against them due to their negligent and criminal method in Iraq.

5. CACI International and Titan Corporation
I wrote about Titan in an article called Aiport Body Scanners: Who Profits?. Both corporations were implicated in Abu Ghraib.

6. Custer Battles
Awarded a $16million contract.



"These aren't insurgents that we're brutalizing,"
says Craun.

"It was local civilians on their way to work. It's wrong."
Capt. Bill Craun is one of four former Custer Battles employees in an NBC report that allege civilian contractors used such unrestrained force in Iraq, they had to quit soon after because of disgust.

"What we saw, I know the American population wouldn't stand for,"
Craun said referring to subcontracted local youth shooting the place up.


7. Halliburton
Honestly, where to begin?

You guys get the idea, but if you want some further research, the others are

8. Lockheed Martin

9. Loral Satellite

10. QUALCOMM

Of course, then we have the slurry of funding going to the alphabet agencies like the CIA, the NSA, the DHS, the DIA, etc. Six years ago we had some 700 military bases worldwide, and I'm sure that number has gone up. We pump absurd amounts of money into border protection, such as a costly wall that doesn't do anything. All the while we ignore that illegal immigrants contribute 1% of our GDP, so why kick them out? The real issue there, of course, is the drug war... Drug War Cost (in real time).

I would begin freezing aspects of the defense budget immediately, and work on the legalizing of drugs for the dual purpose of taxation and ending the drug war.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Someone336]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


Thanks you, one thing is the defense budge to support our military but another one is defense budget that is going to support the thousands of profiteers of war.

Still the reason is not brake down for the consumption of the American tax payer is because Americans will become so outraged of how much of the defense budget actually goes to support only the military.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join