$100 Billion Isn't A "Slash" It's Barely A Nick

Who do they think they're fooling with this nonsense? Cutting 100 billion from a 3.5 trillion dollar budget isn't even a good start.

House budget leaders today unveiled a $3.45 trillion budget blueprint for fiscal 2010 that slices more than $100 billion from the spending plan President Obama proposed last month.

Video below via Powerline- watch it all. Obama is a neophyte. He's as much a dilettante as he is a fad elected with the short-sighted and possibly unintended cooperation of a flawed and failing media that speaks more to America's problems than the kind of change she needs because of that media's liberal bent.

The battle is only beginning. As they say, ... gird your loins. And don't even dream of giving up because neither Obama nor they will until someone has won. And America cannot afford to lose.

Comments

[SacTownMan]

Well that does it for me.

Those house Democrats are always looking out for us all.

I guess they stuck to him with that whole 100 billion in "SAVINGS"!

I'm sure he will veto that bloated budget now!

I'm feeling real "changey" and "hopey" right about now!

[IslamoLlama]

Maybe if he repealed the Bush Tax Cuts early, we could save some extra scratch. Or we could do deep cuts to the bloated military budget. All in favor?

[Terry Gain]

99% of media hacks are math-challenged and, like Obama, have never run anything. They are experts only at envy and trying to describe how people in the real world live and work.

[seekeronos]

"--- Maybe if he repealed the Bush Tax Cuts early, we could save some extra scratch. Or we could do deep cuts to the bloated military budget. All in favor? ---"

NAY.

My vote would be for "Extending the Bush Tax cuts even further, with 10% max tax rate accross the board, 10% capital gains for holdings under 5 years, and NO capital gains for long term holdings (5 years and over)... combined with the dissolution of bloated departments such as the Dept. of Ed, the reduction of the HHS to an advisory council, and the disbanding of the TSA, the Ministry of Homeland Security, and certain other intrusive Bush-era enforcement organizations.

And bringing home ALL of our troops and assets from OCONUS (overseas).

[Andrew_M_Garland]

There are severe negative effects of higher taxes or promised higher taxes. When you try to take money from people, they use a lot of resources to avoid paying what you want. They use politics and the law, at great expense, to avoid an even bigger expense from taxes.

They stop investing in activities that pay only decent, but not large, returns. They stop employing people who have only decent, but not excellent skills.

There is a $200-$300 loss in production (salaries and jobs) from raising tax rates to get an extra $100 in tax collected. This is the Deadweight Loss of taxation. It is what is never produced, or what goes into extra accounting and legal fees, because taxes are raised. We end up with more paper and politics, and less consumer goods and jobs because of the deadweight loss.

The government should purchase only the most essential goods, because they are tremendously expensive when purchased by the government with tax increases.

$1 in stimulus costs $3 in GDP
http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2009/03/cargo-cult-economics.html#p101

The Deadweight Loss of Taxes
http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/12/deadweight-loss-of-taxes.html