Obama wants to freeze discretionary spending for 3 years

[OhioChick]

Source: CNN.com

January 25, 2010 8:27 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will announce in Wednesday's State of the Union address that he's proposing to save $250 billion by freezing all non-security federal discretionary spending for three years, according to two senior administration officials.

The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are funded adequately," one of the senior officials said.

The officials would not reveal the details of which domestic programs would be cut, as they prepare to face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party because popular education and health spending could be on the chopping block. The details will be officially unveiled February 1, when the president publicly releases his next budget blueprint for fiscal year 2011 -- which starts October 1 -- and beyond.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html?hpt=T1

[Razoor]

1. interesting

its going to be interesting to see how this works

[fasttense]

2. If we wanted spending freezes we would have voted for McCain.

I think President Obama should have at least try some of his more liberal campaign ideas before he started using McCain's worn out ideas.

[jgraz]

4. No shit.

I thought Obama was going to turn left. :shrug:

[barb162]

14. double no shit

I don't get it

[Smashcut]

8. In fact, McCain proposed the exact same thing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7569306&mesg_id=7569412

[placton]

48. more and more, not a dime's worth of dif between Obama

and Mcain, other than Obama has a much better VP in Biden - this man is going from bad to evil

[Mithreal]

65. +1

[DJ13]

3. face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party

I always say, when your base is already pissed the best course to take is to screw them over even worse.

Especially in an election year.

Who's side is Obama really on?

[mvd]

16. This sounds hard right

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You have to SPEND yourselves out of a recession. And military spending is not included? Even more wrong. Once again we don't try to win over the people with progressive principles - we'd rather just go right.

[Mithreal]

66. +1

[PSPS]

5. Bush's third term

[Lorien]

9. So it seems. Every day is just another blow to those of us who worked hard to

get him elected. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the Obama administration would be this bad. :-(

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Wrong! Bush kept spending and spending without regard for deficits

[PSPS]

55. Um, you do realize that Obama's budget has the largest deficit in history, don't you?

[wickerwoman]

92. In part because he finally acknowledged many expenses

that Bush was cooking the books on.

[No Elephants]

79. That's what happens when you wage wars, spend a ton of money on raising and lowering alerts,

are not particular about how much you over pay Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, etc., yet don't reduce other expenses or raise taxes. That's what Republicans do, so they can accuse the Democrats who follow them into office of being "tax and spend."


Why alleged "security" spending is sancrosanct is beyond me, though. I bet we have many equivalents of that infamous $1000 plastic toilet seat floating around (no pun intended) in the budgets of the Pentagon, Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, Secret Service, etc. Not to mention the budgets of Congress and the Executive Branch.

[Nihil]

98. No, actually it is his sixth ...

... but most people either haven't noticed or don't really care.

Bread & circuses.

Bread for the MIC, Wall Street, the banks, the corporations.

Circuses for the great unwashed (regardless of whether they claim
loyalty to the red shade or the blue shade of the imperial purple
that has been running the show for so many years).

[slay]

6. Ugh. Whatever. Until he cuts the WAR budget, we are still wasting money, for the wrong reasons

and in the wrong places. Obama's decision to escalate Afghanistan will likely cost him my vote in 2012 and saying that military cuts are off the table, well hell he might as well be GOP. This fucking stinks.

*edited for spelling error

[Peregrine Took]

7. How much do I not like this person? He's learned all the wrong lessons. n/t

[JonLP24]

10. "sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline"?

It doesn't matter the right will still find ways to bash him and say he's hurting the economy even if McCain proposed this. Why do this?

[Arctic Dave]

11. Military gets whatever they want, everyone else gets the middle finger.

FUCK THE MILITARY!!

[inna]

19. Banksters get much more than the military.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7568487

[avaistheone1]

82. The greatest amount of dollars the banksters received was in the form of guarantees.

The military still gets far too much money and the Pentagon has trillions of dollars they literally can not account for.
I am tired of spending my tax dollars for oil wars, for hate, death and destruction.
Obama is doing exactly what Bush would be doing and that is fully funding the war machine and cutting every thing else.

Unplug these wars and we can start saving money right away.

[Dr.Phool]

12. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, ad infinitum.....

:argh: :banghead: :argh: :banghead: :argh: :banghead: :argh: :banghead: :argh: :banghead: :argh: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts: :hurts:

[barb162]

13. I wonder what this means for job stimulus, which is

very dearly needed.

[TheEuclideanOne]

72. If you have to ask, you already know.

[Marthe48]

111. to the point soldiering will be the ONLY job

and isn't that what they all want? Isn't it???

[barb162]

15. k&r

[inna]

17. FUCK. This is UNREAL.

:banghead:

:argh:


As we all know, spending - with no questions asked - is for important things only, such as wars and bankster bailouts. :crazy:

[Exultant Democracy]

56. I don't even want to think about it. For shame.

[diamidue]

112. don't forget "foreign aid".

No freeze/cuts there either. Because using our tax dollars to prop up foreign governments is more important than using it to serve the American people??

[Generator]

18. My stomach used to drop with a sickening feeling

every time Bush proposed something. I did not expect this feeling with Obama.

[DeadEyeDyck]

20. This is the Scott Brown win reaction n/t

[SanchoPanza]

21. See it here.

PDF format: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/trs.pdf

A lot of it has to do with cutting agribusiness subsidies. Good. Not only does it eliminate many boondoggles but it has the added virtue of sticking it to Kent Conrad, they guy primarily responsible for keeping them in there last year. The same guy who's been pimping entitlement reform as a means of curbing the debt.

[t0dd]

22. It just keeps getting better. Freeze the military budget instead. End the wars.

..

[patrice]

23. The only half-way decent thing I can think about this is that America will MAYBE learn the error of

it's war-mongering ways.

A bunch of people supported Bush and his war by re-electing him. Now they are going to learn what it means to pay the piper.

[Cleita]

24. That worked so well for Hoover and later Roosevelt when he tried it briefly.

Why are these failed ideas being recycled? It's as if no one knows history.

[barb162]

32. They're recycled because those who believe in small government

will always be there and they keep up with that line forever, even when spending/ stimulus is desperately needed.

[Dr.Phool]

62. B-E-R-N-A-N-K-E

He's a scholar of the Great Depression. He thinks it's an instruction manual.

And Idiocracy was a documentary.

[No Elephants]

81. Well, then he knows tthat cutting spending was Hoover's error and trying to quiet

Republicans by cutting spending was FDR's error. The latter failed either to quiet Republicans or to help the economy. WEII bailed out FDR's error, but, since we are already in two wars, I don't know what is going to help Obama.

[krabigirl]

25. end the goddamn wars!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[mvd]

29. Agree completely

Since I want out of Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to spend on some kind of protection force/surveillance as a last resort, but the military budget is completely bloated. Military spending is the thing that should be frozen first. If Obama is listening to the right wing of the party, that spells trouble. Because what those Brown voters (who are Democrats and independents) really want is leadership. They're confused by the right's message. So why not push the left's message?

[malakai2]

27. I got it!

He's not playing chess. He's playing golf. Lowest score on election night wins.

[Nihil]

97. Ouch!

That was so apt it was painful!

:applause:

[DeltaLitProf]

28. Sad to say, but $83 billion a year is a pittance

. . . compared to the size of the budget. Granted, the government does NOT need to curtail spending in a recession, but this could have been far worse, and may give Obama the chance to cut some corporate welfare and some ridiculous farm subsidies.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. The point is that it's way more than $83 billion/year

It is a cut of $83 billion PLUS whatever amount over that $83 billion would have been appropriate.

If the economy was guaranteed to be completely fixed in 2011 this would be a cute stunt.

Since there is no such guarantee it is monstrous.

[Marthe48]

110. not a lot compared to whole budget but

it's a lot to the Americans it might have helped

[hay rick]

30. Tough guy posturing.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are adequately funded..."

All non-military spending is just an opportunity to demonstrate the administration's "fiscal responsibility." Sound familiar?

I know this brand- it's Bush Lite.

Pathetic. Repulsive.

[scarabus]

31. 2012

OK. If he does this, I'm through. Any suggestions for a Democratic, genuinely progressive candidate to oppose Obama and Palin in 2012?

[lakercub]

33. sigh

the biggest money-wasting group in the government is, by far, the Department of Defense. If we aren't cutting their budget, we aren't cutting anything. To help solve the budget issues take a look at DoD no-bid contracts, costplus contracts that could be fixed-price, and just flat-out useless programs.

If the Dod doesn't take the most cuts, then this means nothing and is a useless gesture.

[Iowa]

34. Bush/Cheney/Obama... a 12 year national nightmare.

[hay rick]

36. It's almost like a "Democratic" budget.

Except it's the exact opposite.

[tularetom]

37. Who is giving him this lousy advice and why the fuck is he listening to them

He's going to piss off actual Democrats and not gain the approval of the repubs he tries so hard to please.

I can't believe he dreams up shit like this himself, so somebody must be feeding him these dumb ideas.

This person needs to be identified and appointed ambassador to East Bumfuckistan no later than last week.

If Obama doesn't know where to find this douchebag, I've got a hint for him.

He may look something like this:

[Lost4words]

101. I totally agree RE Has got to go!

:banghead: !

[Doctor_J]

38. Ahh, the good old Bill Clinton days

NAFTA, The End Of Welfare As We Know It, The Era Of Big Government Is Over. I bet Big Dog wishes he'd thought of making people buy from Big Insurance.

[Odin2005]

39. Oh sure, money for the MIC doesn't get affected. FUCK THAT

And worse yet, they use "support the troops" emotional blackmail. I thought I voted for a Democrat for President.

[CountAllVotes]

40. and the DNC called wanting $$$ to "further his agenda"

I asked them exactly what is his agenda? I was told a long list of crap and I said, "What about his agenda to END THE DAMN WARS?" No answer.

Then I told the DNC that Obama needs to stop buttering up the asses of a bunch of people that could care less about him. He needs to focus on doing a few things that are very important, #1 being to end the damn wars - the reason I voted for him.

The DNC guy said he agreed with me but he couldn't talk any longer as he had 15 seconds left to talk to me. Fine idiot, fine.

I'm registering Independent I ended the conversation with.

Same old shit, different "leader". :puke:

:dem: :kick: & recommend. !!

[earthside]

41. What a bunch of crap.

I'm sure there is waste and fraud in the "non-security" discretionary budget.

But we spend/borrow a trillion dollars a year on the military and military related programs.

Not one working class American should suffer because of a spending freeze --- especially if the Pentagon remains a sacred cow.

I'm disappointed .. yet ... again.

[Wardoc]

42. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuckking dammit, again. It is like the bullshit is accelerating. (nt)

[unkachuck]

43. I'm having....

....another Gomer 'surprise, surprise' Pyle moment....when cheney was running the government, deficits didn't matter....now that the Dems are running the government, we're in a deficit crisis....

....when the pukes come to power, deficits won't matter again....I'm getting sleepy; I think I'll take a long nap on November 2nd....

[Patchuli]

44. Oh yes! Let's freeze spending

on education and health care!! Gotta keep up with the Jones' on the wars!

Fuckin' A, Mr. President. This is NOT why I gave up all those Saturdays and hard-earned dollars
for you to win the election. Your pretty talk doesn't mean shit at this point.

[AzDar]

45. Is he really this stupid?

REALLY?
:wtf:

[SlingBlade]

49. Yep, Though we normally call this really REPUBLICAN

Don't We ?

[EFerrari]

88. He was the president of the Harvard Law Review.

He is not stupid. :shrug:

[AlphaCentauri]

105. Ronald Reagan was a great actor

no pun intended

[EFerrari]

106. Ronald Raygun was a great sellout. He was a charming gangster.

[Strelnikov_]

46. Sounds like China pulled our credit line n/t

[Mojorabbit]

80. That was my first thought too.

It would not surprise me in the least if this is happening behind the scene but part of me thinks it may just be an overreaction to the Brown win. I don't know what to think as my first reaction was that we really need a lot of money to create some jobs out here and get some people back to work. If that does not happen, tax revenue will continue to decrease and the country will continue to fall further into depression.

[4dsc]

50. And raise taxes on the rich??

[donheld]

51. Is there any way of getting Obama's attention?

Someone's gotta get him to wake the hell up.

[TheEuclideanOne]

71. There is. It is called the Scott Brown Election.

At least it should have been. I was actually happy that Brown won. I was really hoping that it would be a wake up call and would save seats in November. There could have almost been no better of a wake up call. Since it didn't, we are done. End of story. Thanks for playing. Such huge opportunities lost. Why is it that Democrats are so great at screwing things up. Is there nothing that we can't screw up?

[Frank Booth]

52. I'm coming to the conclusion that Obama's not just horribly naive, but also plain

stupid.

This plan makes no sense whatsoever. How many times have we all heard that the Great Depression was exacerbated by spending cuts? And politically, this will be a disaster. Forced austerity measures during times of 10%+ unemployment aren't a great thing to run on.

[DeadEyeDyck]

64. he might be many things but

that man is not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing!

[Zoeisright]

53. That's stupid.

We are not out of the Great Recession yet by a long shot, and the only way out of this is for the government to spend.

[ShortnFiery]

54. Start with the mega-corporations comprising the Military Industrial Complex. eom

[pezDispenser]

57. President Romney

I wonder what else President Obama needs to do to ensure a Romney victory in 2012.

[JCMach1]

60. at this point, we can only hope Romney would be more progressive

CRAP!

[pezDispenser]

68. With all this talk about the perfect not being the enemy of the good

Lets not forget who got health care for his constituents.

[JCMach1]

95. I was actually being sarcastic...

but it is a particular irony that he was able to work with the Democratic legislature to get a plan passed...

[TomCADem]

58. Well, If He Is Interested In Reducing The Deficit, Then Its A Polar Opposite Of Bush

We had a surplus under Bill Clinton, but Dubya handed President Obama a large and growing deficit.

[mvd]

76. We need to wait until after the recession

The freezing of spending comes at the wrong time IMO.

[JCMach1]

59. Fucking hell, if I had wanted McCain in office!

What fresh new horror is this?

[ProgressIn2008]

61. Lost me with the boogyman, cheesefest, ""We are at war." nt

[avaistheone1]

83. Jeeeez, it sounds like Bush is still running the place.

Obama certainly has become the friendly face of corporatism, war and imperialism.

I am beginning to have a better understanding of the revolt by Massachusetts voters every day.

[change_notfinetuning]

63. OK, now he's embarrassing himself. I'm torn between anger and pity. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

67. Y'all funny!

:rofl:




Here is the 2010 budget.......by department (the total would be frozen for 3 years)

The + or - sign next to each department is how much

the Budget for that department grew or shrank

going from Bush to Obama.

Now, tell me, do you notice anything?


$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
$105 billion - Other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget


This is not a bad thing; Freezing spending programs
after a 2010 8% increase and the rearranging of priorities.
The new budget will be proposed in February,
and this announcement will make it not only non controversial,
but a positive thing....
but it still is an 8% increase over 2009!



beyond that, the TARP money is still available to fund special programs dealing with the economy.....

I personally some of y'all like being mad,
and others don't actually analyze much.

[tomm2thumbs]

69. thanks for the info - facts on the table are always a good thing

can't be shoved off the table and argued because the facts always come right back - not that your info won't be thrown back at him by the other side but they aren't good with facts anyway, as they make their brains go mushy

[pezDispenser]

70. So your point is

That a discretionary freeze, that really isn't a a discretionary freeze - just smoke and mirrors - is a good thing? Or its a discretionary freeze 2 years from now, when "y'all" will forget about it is a good thing?


Maybe you could spend some more time analyzing.

[FrenchieCat]

74. No, it is a freeze, after upping spending by 8%.

Now, we maintain that level...because income revenue are going to go down sharply....


it's not about smoke and mirrors,
it's about a smart strategy.

It's only smoking mirrors if you don't look at the numbers,
and make a lot of assumptions.

[U4ikLefty]

84. What is the three year total for 2 unecessary wars? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

86. Well, I know that Obama said he would end both wars after being in office 12 months.

oh...that's right, he didn't....
and neither did anyone else,
except Kucinich. and oh yeah...he lost.

When was the last time the defense budget was cut,
even targeted cuts?
Name the President.

Obama decreased certain spending while increasing other.
His Defense spending budget for his first budget (2009 was bush's)
is the 2010 budget and the defense war spending includes both both Iraq and Afghanistan
for the first time.



Obama budget cuts target military funding
But Pentagon outlays will rise

President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs.

In its "Terminations, Reductions and Savings" booklet, which the administration released Thursday, the White House highlighted the results of the president's line-by-line scrubbing of the federal budget.

The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. Defense accounts for 49 percent of spending on discretionary programs, which Congress must fund each year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/obama-budget-cuts-target-military-funding/


The FY2010 budget offers two necessary changes from past Bush administration budgets. First, Obama will reportedly hold the defense budget flat at FY2010 levels over the next 10 years, adjusting only for inflation. The Center for American Progress made a similar recommendation in “Building a Military for the 21st Century: New Realities, New Priorities,” which in December 2008 argued that the current sum of $534 billion:

“If used wisely, is more than enough to ensure American military predominance while recapitalizing equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, and growing and modernizing the force. The next administration should therefore keep the defense budget flat over the next four years, adjusting for inflation and fluctuations in the U.S. dollar.”

Second, after over seven years of war in Afghanistan and nearly six years in Iraq, the Obama administration’s budget will include the cost of the two wars for the first time. Under the Bush administration, the cost of the wars—currently totaling $657 billion for Iraq and $173 billion for Afghanistan<1>—was appropriated through emergency supplementals, a process that allowed the services to take advantage of war-funding bills to request money for significant non-war-related projects, such as additional F-22 Raptors, that should have been included in the DOD’s baseline budget. CAP advocated reforming the process:

“DOD should in the future submit appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the baseline request in one consolidated budget. This procedure will allow lawmakers to scrutinize the items from the supplemental and force Congress and DOD leaders to make trade-offs and hard choices when considering the FY2010-13 defense budget priorities
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/defense_budget.html


Lawmakers Question Obama's Missile Defense Cuts
By Jennifer Griffin
- FOXNews.com

Lawmakers are demanding to know why the president's proposed 2010 defense budget cuts missile defense by $1.2 billion and does not provide any funds for the European missile defense shield as Iran and North Korea defy the international community with missile testing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/lawmakers-question-obamas-missile-defense-cuts/

[mvd]

73. I understand what you are saying, but..

the Bush administration had already cut funding to the bone, except for defense spending. So freezing all federal discretionary spending for three years is something I'm opposed to. I will see what the President says during his speech; maybe there's a catch somewhere.

[FrenchieCat]

75. But spending went up 8% in 2010 from 2009....with Obama's budget,

while revenues have tumbled down, and will tumble further due to our economy.
Add the TARP money recoup back the picture
and we have paygo, and keeping a rein on spending to
a level that will keep us from being owned by China sooner.

[mvd]

77. Understood, but that still doesn't change my opinion

I don't think a freeze is good right now, period. We need MORE spending; people are still hurting out there. I have no problem increasing the deficit right now.

[FrenchieCat]

78. But this is a flexible freeze, as is my understanding.....

and not relegated to each program....
maybe even not to each department. that's first.

Second, he is talking about the 2011 budget,
which is what will be presented next month,
not the 2010 budget.

2nd, if you ran the numbers,
you'd get it a bit better, possibly.

did you look at the chart that I put up?

DO you realize that this has nothing to do with the TARP money,
recouped, to be recouped, and being paid back now, and some will
be used to fund job programs?

[mvd]

85. We'll see what he says in the speech

Until then, I definitely remain wary of this freeze.

[EFerrari]

90. What is a "flexible freeze"?

lol

[FrenchieCat]

94. lol!

The budgetary figures for a given program or department don't have to stay stagnant (frozen),
as they can be reclassified (moved around). Just that reclassification can't change the overall bottomline.

[EFerrari]

89. Right. Some of us just like to be mad and everyone else doesn't notice.

That's classic denial.

The fact is, the right will say it's not enough and the left will say it's wrong. Which it is.

Good grief. Obama needs to ditch the idiots that are wrecking his presidency. And you need to stop defending them because your'e not doing him any favor whatsoever.

[Raineyb]

108. The freeze is set to start in 2011. So using 2010 budget numbers does not

refute the argument being made.

[FrenchieCat]

109. The Freeze in 2011 will be based on the 2010 numbers......

The 2011 budget is due next month.

So yes, using 2010 budget numbers is exactly what makes sense....as they will be
2011's numbers due to the "freeze".

[defendandprotect]

87. Obama . . how about taking military spending back about 30 years and FREEZE it???

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

102. BOOM goes the dynamite!

[democracy1st]

91. Just another corporatist helping destroy the democratic party

[diamidue]

113. and the American middle class. n/t

[democracy1st]

115. thats true from the very start this admin has been fixated on heading in the wrong direction

[Babel_17]

93. A possibly important quote

But one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have symbolic value. That spending includes lawmakers' earmarks for parochial projects, and only when the public believes such perceived waste is being wrung out will they be willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs, the official said.

"By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget," the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10026/1031141-84.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz0diPgHUBc

[harun]

96. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone. Cut military spending in 1/2. Then

come ask me for donations. Until then....

[Hubert Flottz]

99. How about cutting out the Bush tax cuts instead of America's throat

FDR my ass. More like Hoover.

[Mari333]

100. oh the WARS and MILITARY SPENDING DOESNT GET TOUCHED

lovely..what a surprise. geezus f krist.

[mike_c]

103. Obama/Cheney/Bush are rolling up the middle class right on schedule....

There's still some wealth to be wrung from the rapidly depleting mine that was once a goose full of golden eggs. It's diminishing, but with some judicious wringing the bankers and the MIC can still squeeze out a few more years of boom times. Good times, good times.

[AlphaCentauri]

104. Let Exxon Mobil finance the war on Iraq

that would save more money

[timtom]

107. "We're at war..."

And, whose fault is that?

Homeland Security...feh!

[24601]

114. I keep searching for the Congressional declaration of war and

always come up short. All I find is an Authorized Use of Military Force