CONFIRMED: Obama's Budget seeks deep cuts in domestic spending

[neverforget]

Via MSNBC/NYTimes

Obama’s budget seeks deep cuts in domestic spending
WASHINGTON — President Obama, who is proposing his third annual budget on Monday, will say that it can reduce projected deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, enough to stabilize the nation’s fiscal health and buy time to address its longer-term problems, according to a senior administration official.

Two-thirds of the reductions that Mr. Obama will claim are from cuts in spending, including in many domestic programs that he supports. Among the reductions for just the next fiscal year, 2012, which starts Oct. 1, are more than $1 billion from airport grants and nearly $1 billion from grants to states for water treatment plants and similar projects. Public health and forestry programs would also be cut.

Home energy assistance to low-income families and community service block grants would be cut in half, and an initiative to restore the Great Lakes’ environmental health would be reduced by one-quarter.

The administration readily concedes, even boasts, that the president will not win any race to outcut Republicans. In the House, Republicans are trying to slash up to $100 billion in the current fiscal year alone before they begin writing their own proposed budget for 2012 and beyond.

Much more

[tekisui]

1. It looks to be an absolutely horrendous budget proposal. The WH has really

lost its sense of direction. Or, it has finally given up the pretense.

[LLStarks]

131. Well, implementing new programs to reduce the deficit indirectly is an ass-backwards approach. nt

[WinkyDink]

2. And the invasive creatures in the Great Lakes wildly applaud! And who needs water-treatment plants?!

[ProSense]

3. This is simply a repeat of what has been reported. n/t

[neverforget]

7. weren't you saying wait until the budget comes out and now that it's out

you're cool with it?

[ProSense]

8. The budget comes out on Monday. n/t

[neverforget]

9. Nice way to avoid the question. I take it you're cool with it then

[demmiblue]

14. We all know the answer to that. n/t

[ProSense]

16. No, I'm not cool

with cherry-picked information that amounts to speculation.

[neverforget]

21. So tomorrow when this is released, what will your defense/excuse be

then? Today supposed "cherry picked info" from senior administration officials isn't good enough. Tomorrow the budget will be the greatest pawn sacrifice chess move ever?

[tekisui]

23. It will be: the budget will be debated, has to pass Congress,

and the other talking points, yet to be delivered.

[Bluebear]

120. Whoever ignored is will say "Obama never campaigned on keeping social programs!!!"

You weren't paying attention!!!!

Any excuse for any odious act.

[ProSense]

25. Well, at least you admit it hasn't been released. n/t

[tekisui]

29. Do you expect the actual budget to be different than how this article

presents it?

[ProSense]

45. Yes,

there will be a lot more in it and more context. For example, the article doesn't mention this: Obama Seeks to End $46.2 Billion in Energy-Industry Tax Breaks Over Decade

The $1.1 trillion over 10 years is likely an accurate projection.

[tekisui]

52. That's not different, that is just more.

[RKP5637]

72. +1, n/t

[sad sally]

112. Do you think this will actually happen? Watch the campaign money start

to flow from the Energy-Industry (i.e. oil companies) into politicians hands - including those in our party - and betcha' "now will not be the time to end those tax breaks." What will happen is deep cuts will be made to regulating agencies and Exon will get another $145,000,000+ tax refund.

[neverforget]

32. and you play coy

You do realize this is how administrations have been releasing the budget for years? A grand overview before the specifics?

[ProSense]

46. "A grand overview before the specifics?"

It's not "a grand overview," it's cherry-picked information. There are other articles mentioning other likely proposals.

I have yet to see an article with an overall listing of the proposals that have been suggested.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmadillo]

39. He's only been president for a couple of years. Give him time.

nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

123. Multi-dimensional chess game in progress... n/t

[QC]

152. It's only been 755 days. n/t

[donheld]

130. He'll be in hiding then

[CreekDog]

57. so you will protest Obama' budget here on Monday if any of these reported cuts are in there?

yeah, we all know the dithering answer to that.

[Hello_Kitty]

61. I'm going to go with "no" on that.

They will be characterized as "painful shared sacrifices that needed to be made" blah blah blah "the deficit" blah dee blah...

[ProSense]

67. Will you join me

in lauding the proposals to end tax cuts and subsidies for the rich and oil companies?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

73. If History can be used as a predictor,

...those will all be "compromised" away in a bi-partisan love fest with the Republicans.
Those are merely included as a shiny objects to distract the pleasant class,
and provide him with plausible deniability.

"Well, he fought really, really hard for those things,
but didn't have the votes."
"Its all Joe Lieberman and Ralph Nader's fault."

Same old,
same old.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. And Jane Hamsher! Don't forget Jane Hamsher!

She went on MSNBC and got the dirty fucking hippies all riled up which caused them to summon their massive power and influence to foil President Obama yet again! Those dastardly Professional Leftists!

Then we go back to being an irrelevant fringe tiny minority that no one pays any attention to.

[Lorien]

78. Predictably, you didn't answer their question. Don't change the topic

a simple "yes" or "no" will do.

[sabrina 1]

84. That's just speculation. It hasn't been 'confirmed yet', right?

We need more context, this is cherry-picking until we see the actual budget!

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

104. Oh no, that's different.

We're supposed to genuflect before any good proposals that come from this Administration and treat them as proof that it's the Most Progressive Presidency Evar. Whether or not they come to fruition. You know like, the robust public option. Oh wait... We're supposed to pretend he never promised that. I'll try to come up with a better example.

[treestar]

87. Of course not.

Anything that is a good idea: ignore
anything that can be interpreted as a bad idea: make the most of it.

[Hello_Kitty]

101. Aren't you jumping to conclusions treestar?

Why are you assuming those things ARE good ideas and that they'll be in the final plan?

Why don't you follow your own advice you gave elsewhere on this thread?

[rhett o rick]

134. So you favored the tax breaks for the wealthy? And opposed the public option? And call yourself a

Democrat.

[pacalo]

124. The cut for heating assistance to the poor is included in your excerpt in the link

you provided, which seems to indicate an acceptance as fact on your part that this particular cut is a done deal (before it's officially announced on Monday). I read your denials (cherry-picked info, hasn't been announced) upthread & I'm confused why you're debating this at all if you're providing the same "speculative" information.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

137. edit

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

37. I thought you said to wait? nt

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

12. boy are you defensive. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

66. Not defensive. Just factual. The budget has not been released yet.

Once it is out, what is being proposed will be something other than conjecture or rumor.

[tekisui]

13. I hope it is repeated and repeated until everyone sees and hears how the people are being screwed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

102. Not a repeat to me, this is first time I have seen this info.

Thanks for posting, neverforget.

rec!

[sasha031]

4. The administration readily concedes, even boasts, that the president will not win any race to outcut

Republican's....

isn't great we have a Democrat in the WH?:argh:

[jefferson_dem]

17. You missed the point.

The alternative, as Obama suggests, is the Republican "slash and burn" approach...which is exactly what we would have had with a Republican in the White House.

[tekisui]

19. So sad those are our only options.

[bettyellen]

26. but very honest and realistic to admit that these are the current options

i see lots of criticism here grounded in total fantasy.

[jefferson_dem]

34. Aye.

Political reality is what it is. With these cuts, POTUS has made a serious move toward deficit reduction. That's undeniable... and will be a central talking point of his during next year's campaign. The contrast between this (more) reasonable approach and the insanity recommended by the Teabagger Party will be a sight to behold.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Because the deficit is really important now

Unlike when the Bush tax cuts were extended, when it wasn't.

[bluestate10]

69. The deficit is important, but protecting important programs from the meat axe

cutting program that republicans want is important also. President Obama is walking a tightrope in his struggle with republicans, if President Obama wins, republicans will looking both foolish and as being anti-social complainers. At best, the budget that is put forward will be one that will smoke republicans from under the cover that they have been under since being crushed in the 2008 elections, while showing independents how wasted many of their votes were in 2010 when the helped give republicans larger numbers in Washington.

[jefferson_dem]

28. On that, we agree.

The tax cut extension for Richy Rich puts us in a terrible budgetary bind. Truth is, however, that without them there was no other way of making any progress during the "lame duck" session debate. Obama's line in the sand (insofar as there is one) is approaching next year when they expire again. He best start making the case ... NOW.

[sabrina 1]

88. Yes, but we don't have a Republican in the WH, we have a Democrat.

So, the idea of putting a Dem in the WH was so that he could use his power, the WH DOES have some power, to slash and burn Republican ideas, NOT try to play 'catch up' with them in the hopes they will throw us a few crumbs.

At least that was my intention when I supported a Democrat.

As Nancy Reagan once said, 'just say no'. That is how you deal with bullies. Tell them 'no cuts for the poor, the working class etc' and let THEM work around Democratic will power for a change.

[jefferson_dem]

92. Right. This budget is an illustration that we have a Democrat (not a GOPer nor a Green) in the WH.

Pragmatic policy. Smart politics. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x611021

[sabrina 1]

94. I take it you are not one of those elderly people living on SS

or disable living on SSI with children to support, who needed LIHEAP to keep your family from freezing in the winter?

Last I looked, a great Democratic President, aware that such people actually live in the U.S. instituted one of the most successful and fiscally Conservative programs ever to make sure that those who are in need, do not freeze or starve. That president, would never have made proposals like these. A program currently under assault with no indication that this Democratic president intends to put up much of a fight to protect it.

One of the most increasingly hated, over-used and misinterpreted words in the Engish language is the Capitalist term 'pragmatic' Watch out when you see a politician using that word. And 'smart politics' another term that should send up warning signals. Some things are just about people, their survival, their quality of life, and have little to do with 'smart politics' which 9 times out of 10 translate into the making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I wish you had not used that terminology, it scares me.

[jefferson_dem]

97. That imaginary world of false dichotomies and "purity over real progress" bores me.

Sure, there are a few squeaky wheels on the political extremes who despise pragmatism as it exposes their narrow-minded pettiness for what it is.

Whatever, smart politics will make sure we keep a Democratic president in the White House through 2016. Enjoy... as I know you will.

[sabrina 1]

105. Well, keeping a politician in the WH is not the issue. You

did not respond to my comment so I take I was correct, you do not need to concern yourself with such trivia as elderly and disabled people freezing to death, which btw, happens even without the proposed cuts.

Thanks, you probably actually did respond in a roundabout way ~

[jefferson_dem]

108. I didn't answer because it's a silly, loaded question.

Of course, we are all concerned about those less fortunate.

I wonder how some reconcile such an emphasis on the needy with the reality that unemployment insurance would have expired...if the "tax deal" was not cut last December. Do you not care about Americans who are out of work?

[sabrina 1]

113. The Bush Tax cuts should have dealt with during the

campaign leading up to the election. Instead, that issue was removed from the debate in order to make it seem as if it was the only way to get an extension of those UI benefits. No one was fooled by the tactic. Well, almost no one.

Leadership is what was required, and there should have been no bargaining away of another additional 700 billion dollars added on to the deficit. But not much surprises us anymore.

[Dragonfli]

138. It's not about purity, it's about people, what is so pragmatic about freezing people to death?

I could do without that sort of pragmatism thank you.

[metapunditedgy]

148. Total bullshit. For example, who was FORCED to extend the Bu$h tax cuts for the rich? n/t

[dkf]

5. As Medicare and Medicaid grow and grow these cuts will only get worse.

At some point it's going to be a choice between keeping social security. Medicare and Medicaid as is or the rest of federal funding will have to be cut. The part that they are looking to cut is such a small sliver that it will have to be cut drastically to have any impact.

[bettyellen]

30. bullshit RW meme against self sustaining SS, so shamless!

[dkf]

33. You do realize that general taxes will have to pay back the trillions owed to the SS system right?

That means paying back social security is going to crowd out other federal spending. It's kind of a no brainer.

Paying back any debt and paying the interest on that debt plus the increases in the entitlements will eventually eat up all our tax revenue.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Psst!

[bettyellen]

47. key words "trillions owed" , it wasn;t a giveaway, but SS is not an entitlement either, so....

it makes one wonder where you are getting this nonsense from. SS money should not have gone to federal spending period.
The spending is what it is and would have to come from taxes one way or another. That is the real no brainer here. It matters naught that some people would prefer to cheat those who PAID FOR SS, as they are advocationg THEFT. They are advocationg defaulting and sheating people out of their own funds. That;s what you are in favor of, really?
There are much bigger spending issues than SS here, but RW memes seem to have hoodwinked you into having misplaced priorities... Entitlements?!?!? what;s the surce of that gem? LOL.

[texshelters]

65. That's only because

the government raided the fund, not because there is not enough money in it.

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/lie-of-the-month-social-security-is-insolvent/

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[dkf]

140. Yup. If only they had invested it in gold or stocks or something worth selling.

I was telling my friend at work that Ronald Reagan pulled off the biggest ripoff scheme in history. He conned the middle class into being enthusiastic about paying a regressive tax to fund the government.

[jefferson_dem]

42. Watch out!

Some confuse fantasy with reality... play "Baghdad Bob" on the budget and entitlements, and will mistake your sensible approach for RWNJ talking points.

What deficit problem? There's no deficit problem. Rinse. Repeat.

[bettyellen]

48. SS is NOT an entitlement. THAT is the fantasy meme being pushed here.

[texshelters]

64. You are right, and so many are wrong on that

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/lie-of-the-month-social-security-is-insolvent/

Besides, the word "entitlement" is not evil.

A baby is entitled to food, is it not? The people are entitled to clean air, is that not so?

People who paid into unemployment should get some relief when times are tough. Whether that is good or bad has nothing to do with the word "entitlement".

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Little Star]

144. Not this shit again!!!

[Hello_Kitty]

54. Gotta love the Born Again Deficit Hawks.

Y'all weren't concerned about "the deficit" when the Bush tax cuts were extended. But now you are. Just as I predicted.

[jefferson_dem]

75. Forget "Y'all". Where did I say I wasn't concerned about the impact of the tax cut....

extension on the deficit?

[Hello_Kitty]

76. I don't recall any of y'all fretting about it back then.

But now you're deeply concerned.

[somone]

6. The Gipper would be so proud

[Avant Guardian]

10. Obama has decided to take the GOP path

Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the rich somehow.

Move over Hoover

[jefferson_dem]

43. Hey! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[hfojvt]

11. $1.1 trillion over the next decade

Wow!!!


That's more than half of the amount in tax cuts going to rich people.

very impressive :applause: :applause:

It's also a very impressive negotiating position. By proposing to meet the Republicans more than halfway, a compromise will more easily be reached that meets Republicans 98% of the way.

Again :applause: :applause:

Everybody cheer with me.

HOPE AND CHANGE!!
HOPE AND CHANGE!!
HOPE AND CHANGE!!

[jefferson_dem]

20. "How’s that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?"

[neverforget]

27. Bingo! Palin fear card!

[hfojvt]

51. unfortunately not very well at all

I did not expect the change to be "the Democratic Party will change into the Republican Party"

I wanted Jesse Jackson and instead seem to have George HW Bush. That's change I can't believe in.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

141. Your post reeks of seamy projection.

Enjoy that, eh.

[ProSense]

35. Hmmm?

"By proposing to meet the Republicans more than halfway"

Straight spending cuts and reducing the deficit aren't necessarily the same thing.

<...>

Obama’s proposal comes after the GOP has proposed $100 billion in cuts for the current fiscal year alone — and sets the stage for a showdown amid months of weak job creation and a fragile economic recovery. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit for fiscal 2011 would be a record $1.48 trillion.

As part of Obama’s proposal for fiscal 2012, he calls for a five-year freeze on parts of the budget and a variety of rollbacks, but it differs from the Republican agenda by proposing lifting the Bush-era tax cuts on incomes more than $250,000 a year.

“After a decade of rising deficits, this budget asks Washington to live within its means, while at the same time investing in our future,” Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday. “It cuts what we can’t afford to pay for what we cannot do without. That’s what families do in hard times. And that’s what our country has to do too.”

He also suggests $78 billion in military spending cuts over the next five years, reductions already identified and signed off on by Pentagon chief Robert Gates, while the Republicans propose a mostly untouched defense budget.

link

The proposals includes some cuts, including ending subsidies for oil companies, and other things that increase the federal revenue, such as ending tax cuts for the rich.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. Exactly!

People are defending this bullshit by claiming the WH has to propose draconian cuts because the Republican Congress is going to propose even worse cuts!

:wtf:

[w8liftinglady]

18. A sincere question.. how much of The defense budget is being cut... and where?

[jefferson_dem]

22. $78 billion over five years, according to the report.

"Pentagon cuts would include the C-17 aircraft, the alternate engine to the Joint Strike Fighter and the Marine Expeditionary Vehicle that the Defense Department says it does not need."

[Cali_Democrat]

31. That amounts to a 0.02% reduction in the defense budget over 5 years

$78 Billion? This years defense budget will be over $700 billion. Over a 5 year period that amounts to $3.5 trillion in defense spending and your trying to tout $78 billion in cuts?

Would you consider those to be serious cuts? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[bossy22]

89. completely untrue

the defense budget will see even more cuts- but not in the base budget. FY 2011 will be the last year that you will see a total budget over 700 billion in the near term- i believe the FY 2012 budget will be about 680 billion and continue to drop from then on- the reason being is that war costs are going from 170 billion a year to 50 billion a year.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/FY11_Green_Book.pdf if you look on page 211 you will see defense will drop close to a 100 billion in the near term than slowly increase by reasonable amounts in the far term of this decade as equipment has to be replaced

[Cali_Democrat]

117. Lets assume that report is correct.....

Of course it's hard to say for sure because we all know how Washington's politicians are addicted to feeding the military industrial complex.

$78 billion over 5 years is still minuscule.

[Lorien]

80. A drop in the bucket.

END THE F*CKING USELESS WARS ALREADY!

[bossy22]

90. precisely

ending the wars would bring an immediate cut of 100 billion to the DOD budget

[Telly Savalas]

128. Can you really consider refraining from paying something you don't need a cut?

I'm saving my household $30,000 by not buying a hovercraft next year. I'm a personal finance genius!

[neverforget]

24. They're cutting existing programs to maintain the current budget at

$549 billion. That does not include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-11/us/congress.pentagon.budget_1_defense-budget-wasteful-spending-mackenzie-eaglen?_s=PM:US

[Starry Messenger]

36. Unless you are wealthy already you are fucked.

This is the same program being levied on the PIIGS countries now. The reward for all of the hard work from the people is a kick in the teeth.

[RKP5637]

44. Yep, the rest of us are in the way. US isn't about people, it's about $$$$ and corp./wealthy

profits. If you are a "normal" person in the US you are fucked.

[katnapped]

70. "Useless eaters"

That's all we are to them

[Lorien]

81. Ain't that the truth!

It's sickening that the usual suspects are DEFENDING this shit and trying to change the topic!

[Starry Messenger]

103. That's their entire social role in our system.

Defending the status quo and protecting power. If we rabble had our voices heard, their own privileges and access to power (real or perceived) would cease & their role would no longer be necessary. They are traitors to the people.

[Autumn]

38. Is this like a Sputnik Moment? On to

glory and all that bullshit? I'm thinking super duper 375 dimensional chess and guess who the fucking pawn are.

[Odin2005]

49. Obama = Reagan.

[EndElectoral]

53. Makes me sick to read in lieu of the tax cut for the wealthy.

[Amonester]

55. And ending unnecessary wars of aggression

Which nobody else than mega-corporations and private (read, wasting) military contractors will ever 'win' big.

Wars of aggression everybody else will 'lose' big, especially the poor.

Bring The Boys 'n Girls Back Home!

[treestar]

85. They come from different places

The tax cuts for the wealthy were put there by Bush - at least they expired, so that they could be used as bargaining chips.

That was not in the sole control of the Executive Branch.

Likewise with the budget - the Republicans have Congress now and have to be encouraged to vote for it.

[quinnox]

59. Continuing the Bush tax cuts is so dumb

Sure, the Obama government pretend they want to drop the tax cuts for the rich (I'll believe it when I see it), but why are they keeping the rest of the Bush tax cuts?

All taxes, on middle class and rich need to be raised. Only the poor should not have taxes raised.


Let the Bush tax cuts expire, and raise taxes on rich the most, with smaller raises as you go down the income ladder.

[neverforget]

127. Not only was it beyond stupid to extend them, we even accepted their

framing on tax cuts and deficits. :banghead: :argh:

[texshelters]

60. This budget could have been written by a Republican, pre-

Reagan. Apparently, Obama hasn't read my budget proposal.

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/the-deficit-of-truth-and-ideas-the-surplus-of-lies-and-greed/

The mistakes and malfeasance of the bankers, brokers, and billionaires is being paid for by the poor in this budget.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Lorien]

82. You mean Pre-Bush II

Reagan was to the Left of Obama on many issues.

[texshelters]

149. But I meant Reagan

his budget were much like this. But you get my point. It's a very Republican budget, and I am not sure Reagan is left of Obama, but Obama and Reagan have a lot in common, more than Obama and other Democratic presidents, except perhaps Clinton.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[louslobbs]

96. Yep,

No more phone calls, we have a winner.

[chill_wind]

68. K & R. n/t

[BlueCheese]

77. Interesting.

Two-thirds of the reductions that Mr. Obama will claim are from cuts in spending, including in many domestic programs that he supports.

Obama was allegedly against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but those passed and he signed them. Now he claims to support heating assistance for the poor and Pell grants, but will go along with Republicans to gut them.

Maybe it's time we asked what he really supports and what he really opposes?

[treestar]

83. You're making assumptions about how these cuts would be made

The heating issue - the weatherizing program apparently cut back on the need for some of the aid.

some of it could be cutting red tape for all we know. We just don't know the details.

this kind of post seeks to get us to jump to conclusions.

[bossy22]

86. very true

we dont know the specifics yet.

[louslobbs]

95. No, it just reaffirms what we already know,

The Fix is in. When was the last time a budget proposal could be thought of in terms of helping the poor and needy and hurting the rich, including those in our government who are fat and happy millionaires? In this case, the past is usually a good indicator of what the future will look like for those without and in need in a budget proposal. As Mrs. Doubtfire would say, "Wake up and smell the coffee dear"
Lou

[Hello_Kitty]

100. So Senator Kerry was jumping to conclusions

When he wrote to the President asking him not to make the cuts?

[treestar]

118. Maybe.

Are we also to presume conclusively that Sen. Kerry never jumps to conclusions?

[politicasista]

153. He is smart and one of Obama's best allies, especially when

it comes to foreign policy.

Maybe this is good cop/bad cop and maybe he is helping President Obama behind the scenes, and very sure that Obama has no problem with it either.

[politicasista]

154. Nope n/t

[neverforget]

151. Well it wasn't a jump to conclusions as it was factual from a senior

administration official on Sunday. And today, Monday, it was all proven true.

[jefferson_dem]

91. Obama's budget to call for slashing oil tax breaks, boosting clean energy

JEST LIKE BOOOOOOOOSH!!12211!!

Obama's budget to call for slashing oil tax breaks, boosting clean energy
HERE - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x611021

[katnapped]

107. Too bad for your hero

Those oil tax breaks are DOA and I don't expect that "clean energy" to go anywhere either.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[louslobbs]

93. I have an idea.

How about another $800billion tax give-away to the millionaires and billionaires tacked onto the deficit, I'm sure that would help the eCONomy by creating jobs and help bring down the deficit as well LOL. It feels like up is down and down is up with all of these pathetic politicians, scamming and helping the rich dirt bags and the corporate pigs, while breaking the backs of 98% of us by cutting everyday necessities. How many more people do they want on food stamps, that they will then cut? This game is rigged but good, how can we even the odds? The Pig Politicians might push all of us to answer that question one day, by taking to the streets ourselves. Of course, our Military would probably fire on us and run us all over with tanks in the name of democracy. Civil discourse indeed.
Lou

[katnapped]

106. I've got a better idea

Why don't we just turn over all out life savings to the rich? They're gonna get it sooner or later so why bother putting it off?

[louslobbs]

109. I'll say this for ya,

that sure is one hell of an idea. I didn't want to go that far yet, I was hoping I'd be dead before that actually happens.
lou

[mmonk]

98. Essentially a battle between conservative and radical right wing

proposals.

[somone]

99. Indeed. Reaganites vs Bachmannians

is what we're seeing

[Raksha]

119. I think you meant Reaganites vs. Bachmaniacs...

still not a desirable choice.

[MisterP]

111. but y'all better vote for him, or the wrong cat might win Mouseland!!!!!!!111111111 nt

[katnapped]

114. I'll take my chances n/t

[Better Believe It]

115. But the Republicans will always propose deeper cuts and Democrats will meet them halfway .. or more!

And that's called negotiations in which Republicans "settle" for what they really thought was possible.

The Republicans also propose worse legislation which so-called "centrists" believe will make Democratic cuts seems almost reasonable and sale-able!

Nice game.

Want to play?

[Blue_In_AK]

116. As always, the middle and poorer classes take the hit,

while the rich get richer. I'm sick of our government.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

122. 1.1 trillion is nothing, try harder and cut aid to the wealthy and mega-conglomerates.

Thanks, check back in when you have a real domestic spending policy...this is just going to hurt us in the longrun UNLESS we start fixing the problem right in front of us TODAY. If not, then the GOPukers are guaranteed more seats, solely out of spite.

[Nodak]

126. A good start

would be to close every single overseas military base and cease all foreign aid.

[neverforget]

129. DU will be an interesting place tomorrow when the budget is released

[Adsos Letter]

133. "Home energy assistance to low-income families..."

Shameful if true.

[neverforget]

135. yeah, well someone has to sacrifice for the wealthy and the mic.

[Major Hogwash]

136. Well, we have to pass a budget. We all know that. So, Congress is the battleground.

What will the Orange Man say about it?

[_ed_]

142. Reagan would be very proud

of Obama and the "new Democrats."

Pay off the rich, tax the poor. This is what we voted for?

[truebrit71]

143. Yup. Lot's of 'change'*

*this was a campaign promise, your actual change may vary...

[neverforget]

146. it is change

You and me get to sacrifice while the military and wealthy don't have to as much.

[jillan]

145. Mr President - who is going to vote for you in 2012??? The repubs that you're trying to please?

:rofl: :rofl:

The people that you are ???

Don't be calling me for donations to your re-election campaign.

Time for a PROGRESSIVE candidate.:grr:

[neverforget]

147. well i guess the cuts were real

and not just conjecture

[bvar22]

150. New Talking Points will be out for tomorrow.

*