Obama's budget cut explained

[EddieS'04]

This is a pretty incredible visualization.



It only take 98 seconds to watch but its worth your time.



If your link does not work just Google wimp budget cuts and it will take you there.









THIS IS VERY CLEVER AND TAKES ONLY 1.5 MINUTES !!!!!!



A student explains 100 Million Dollar Budget Cut



Trust me, you have to watch this one. I promise you'll end up smarter in just a minute and thirty-eight seconds.



Recently Obama announced that over the next 90-days he is going to work to cut 100-Million dollars of spending out of the Federal Budget.



A college student explains.

 

[David Ponder]

Thats pretty cool.. Thanks for posting Eddie.

 

[WILL E]

And a 100 billion isn't that many more and we are having to fight for that!



That was a great video. There is so much money wasted in the Government. Certainly we can do better.

 

[Bud Williams]

Pretty amazing when shown like that....

also go to the link below and see what a trillion dollars looks like...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Related to the video (for those that have watched it), let's demand that our government runs itself ONLY on what is required (left of the white line), and let's figure out how to cut that as well as the next step.



Homes all over the country are running on an austerity budget. Why not our government?



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, I agree--but to clarify, "left of the white line" isn't "what is required", but "mandatory spending". According to the video, it's mainly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. (Although it doesn't mention it, I assume that section also includes interest on the debt.) It doesn't yet include anything like defense, highways, nothing.



So I would argue that much of what is to the right of the white line is "required". But we still need to get all the eliminate everything to the right of the blue line--either by reducing the number of pennies (spending less--and this includes finding ways to reduce the number of pennies to the left of the white line), or by moving the blue line to the right (increasing income via taxes).



You hear so many people (especially Tea Partiers) saying that we need to reduce spending to balance the budget and reduce taxes. I agree with the spending reduction part--but I really think that the only way we're going to attain the human psychological state necessary for a significant spending cut to be enacted is to first drastically raise the tax rate, high enough to cover the deficit and balance the budget. Deficit spending makes the spending less painful--it's why credit cards are so popular. Once people really, truly feel the financial pinch which results from our spending patterns, only then will they be willing to sacrifice the things which they were previously buying with that excess spending. Without that kind of a psychological shock, I don't see much hope of it happening.

 

[Bill V]

One other thing to note--



The video distorts the facts a bit regarding "Obama's budget cuts". It makes it sound like he was only seeking $100 million from the entire $3.5 trillion+ federal budget. That's not true. The cuts were ordered at a cabinet meeting, from just their agency budgets. Paraphrasing, the article whose headline appeared in the video and other related articles from that day, it was stated to be the first of many, to become a pattern of finding spending reductions throughout the government in all sizes. It was fully acknowledged that the $100 million was a drop in the bucket--but it wasn't meant to be the only cut made, just the first.



I fully agree that it can be argued whether such cut hunting is sufficient, as well as whether he's followed up with those commitments. I'll concede he's failed for the most part on both points. But the video isn't a fair representation either.

 

[Richard L]

Yep, that sure makes it clear. It will probably cost the $100 million in federal paperwork just to cut the budget...so the net gain is nothing.



The same applies to all the so-called tax cuts that the politicians like to talk about. Most average income families don't see more than about $50-$60 tax savings in the whole year About enought to take a family of 4 out to dinner...if you don't mind going to McDonalds.



...Rich

 

[EddieS'04]

It will probably cost the $100 million in federal paperwork just to cut the budget...so the net gain is nothing.

RL,,your right about that. Sometimes there is so much red tape. It is cheaper to leave it be. Certainly a sign of too much bueracacy.



Watched a special on PBS on medicare. Something to the effect of costing more to rewrite some contracts for some medical supplies. Would cost more than the savings. Examples were given. The one I remember was the feds pay one company over $20 for a bandage, before distribution cost. You can buy the same one at the pharmacy, $5. The cost to sue for a new contract so it can be a bid item, was too expensive. This case was one of those good ol boy, life contracts. As private citizens, we would be prosecuted, price gouging.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I really think that the only way we're going to attain the human psychological state necessary for a significant spending cut to be enacted is to first drastically raise the tax rate...

Once people really, truly feel the financial pinch which results from our spending patterns

But I don't have poor spending patterns; why should I be castigated for something I didn't do?



Obama could cut medicare & SS--the only risk is his reputation, and that won't (can't?) decrease.

The ones who still rally to his cause have seen enough reason to forsake him, but haven't yet. There's a chance that not even that would.



Nice allegorical video.

 

[H D]

But I don't have poor spending patterns; why should I be castigated for something I didn't do?

+1



Also, I think it is borderline hilarious to think that an increase in taxes would pay down the deficit at all. I think it would probably result in a higher deficit because more entitlements would be created and spending would increase with all the "new-found monies." I don't know for sure and am too lazy to look it up, but most American citizens don't have nearly as bad spending habits as the government (percent of income to debt).



What I think would go the farthest and be the most successful would be to disband the many, many, many redundant, overlapping, counterproductive government agencies. Extreme problems call for extreme and sometime painful and unpopular changes. This is the change that is necessary. Public workers will lose jobs, sure. Some things will receive less attention, sure. Some people are going to get mad, sure.



Even more helpful than that, though. Fair tax.