Obama backs trillions in “painful spending cuts” for elderly, sick, school kids, & college students.

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/budg-j30.shtml

Obama backs trillions in “painful spending cuts”
By Patrick Martin
30 June 2011

At a press conference Wednesday, US President Barack Obama reiterated his determination to impose trillions of dollars of spending cuts on the elderly, the sick, school children and college students. He appealed to congressional Republicans to agree to a handful of minor tax increases on the wealthy to provide the fig leaf of what he called a “balanced” program of deficit reduction.

In his opening statement and on several occasions during the 70-minute appearance before media representatives, Obama embraced deficit reduction as the central priority of his administration. He described budget-cutting in the same terms as the Republicans, calling it, “part of an overall package for job growth over the long term. It’s not the only part of it, but it’s an important part of it.”

The claim that deficit reduction creates jobs is an absurdity that until recently would have found support only among the free market ideologues of the ultra-right. The practical effect of slashing federal spending will be to further contract the US economy, adding to the impact of the destruction of 535,000 jobs through state and local government budget cuts over the last two years.

The social impact of the budget cuts will be even worse: undermining and ultimately destroying social programs on which tens of millions of people depend, including health care, education, environmental protection and a secure retirement.

more...

[SidDithers]

1. Unrec for wsws...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

22. Rec for Truth.

Octafish

[FLPanhandle]

32. Not the truth

You can't cut trillions for the elderly, sick, school kids, & college students, when you don't spend that much on them in the first place.

[Octafish]

33. Excellent point.

You know what we do spend trillions on? Servicing the National Debt. In FY 2010, the interest paid was $413 billion.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. It's over a number of years. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

41. They figure it over 10 years, and yes they can.

Here is the most recent monthly Treasury report:
http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0511.pdf

Total estimated outlays by feds this year = 3.8 trillion, so far (May) 2.4 trillion. The current fiscal year ends September. Of the amount paid out, we expect to borrow 1.8 trillion.

We expect to spend .8 trillion on Social Security alone this fiscal year. By May, we had already spent more than half a trillion.
We expect to spend .74 trillion on DoD. By May, we had already spent almost 450 billion, or .45 trillion.
We expect to spend .91 trillion on Health and Human Services. By May, we had already spent 581 billion, or .58 trillion.

Breaking down HHS (which is going to increase the most, relatively):
As of May:
189 billion for Medicaid (given to states)
6 billion for Childrens (given to states)
165 billion for Medicare Hospital insurance.
185 billion for Medicare SMI (federal subsidies for physician & outpatient, drugs)
The grand total already paid for CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) from Oct-May was 707 billion.

I am not including things like student loans, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc. Just between SS & Medicare/Medicaid, through May we had spent about 1.29 trillion. These amounts are rising quite rapidly because of retirements, and are slated to rise much more rapidly because of health care reform, which obligates the federal government to greatly increase Medicaid payments to the states.

These two sets of obligations account for about half of federal spending and are due to increase in share. By the end of this fiscal year they will total close to 1.8 trillion. If you cut by 10% a year from projected spending, at the end of 10 years the total cut would amount to about 2.3-2.4 trillion.

Health care reform also enacted a bunch of cuts to Medicare already, which totaled about 500 billion over 10 years. Don't think it can't happen, because it is going to happen.
.

[truebrit71]

2. Why is it that these republican president's want to balance deficit reduction on those that can..

..least afford it...Oh wait, he's a Democrat you say...:wtf:

Sorry Mr Prez, but it's 'line in the sand time'...no cuts ANYWHERE and the rich must pay more...

[JuniperLea]

6. You should at least try to read the article...

Before making comment on content.

[truebrit71]

9. Um, I did...did you?

The article says what the OP says...:shrug:...where's the confusion?

[otohara]

3. The WSW Headline of This Article

doesn't match yours????

What's up with that?

[Karmadillo]

11. Read the first sentence of the article.

nt

[otohara]

13. The First Sentence??

oh I see, if you don't like the original title, just embellish it with some words from the first sentence.

FAIL

[Karmadillo]

14. But it's accurate, isn't it. You just don't like the facts.

nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Occulus]

25. Except that isn't true at all

Headline:

Obama backs trillions in “painful spending cuts”

OP headline:

"Obama backs trillions in “painful spending cuts” for elderly, sick, school kids, & college students."

First sentence of the article:

"At a press conference Wednesday, US President Barack Obama reiterated his determination to impose trillions of dollars of spending cuts on the elderly, the sick, school children and college students."

Since "Obama backs" means the same thing as "Obama reiterated his determination to impose", I fail to see exactly how this was changed, other than making the wording simpler. As others have said, the OP headline was taken from the first sentence.

This isn't LBN. This is GD. The OP headline could have been "Obama Determined to Shit on Poor, Old, Sick" and it wouldn't mean a diddly-damn to the content of the article itself. The only place the headlines have to match is in LBN. If you don't like that, it's an issue to be griped about in ATA, not here.

Which tells me that you are trying to ignore the real issues as laid out in the article itself.

[Autumn]

4. recommended .We have to get that

money from somewhere. Wars to be fought, tax cuts to pay for.:banghead:

[Sheepshank]

5. Unrec for bullshit heading

that article says nothing of the sort.

it says nothing about direct bennies vs. cutting admin waste and fraud.

[JuniperLea]

7. Unrec for same reason...

Among others. Sheesh.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

23. what's "desperate" is using non credible rags like wsws in the 24/7 neverending campaign against

democrats on here.

[Occulus]

21. It doesn't?

The Medicaid cuts alone, as detailed in the Washington Post, come to more than $100 billion, reducing the federal government’s share of the joint federal-state program. Medicaid pays for healthcare for the poor and the disabled, as well as nursing home care for the poor elderly

The words "waste" and "fraud" aren't used at all, by the way.

[nc4bo]

37. reduces the feds share of the joint fed-state program and basically shifts it to each individual

state. Hello?! States are strapped as it is, where's the money going to come from to pick up the Fed's slack? Where?!

See this is the bullshit that I have come to loathe from this Administration. It's sneaky and slick and tries to hide the shit with flowery words and phrases and deliberate attempts to not be specific.

I've bent over backwards trying to comprehend the politic-speak President Obama (and so many other politicians) is so good at. Like so many others, take that wait and see attitude and figure that sooner or later the filthy truth will start oozing out.

[Occulus]

26. ....the HELL?

Yes it does, in the very first sentence!

[emulatorloo]

8. Calling BULLSHIT on your headline. Unrec for intellectual dishonesty. n/t

[Karmadillo]

12. How is my headline bullshit?

nt

[SidDithers]

34. ...

:rofl:

Sid

[lonestarnot]

10. OH bullshit!

[Karmadillo]

17. What specifically in the article is bullshit?

nt

[fascisthunter]

27. notice nobody answering you

I'm waiting for a reason to ignore this article, but so far I see nothing on the thread to convince me that it is.

[Karmadillo]

40. One would think they could muster more than cries of "bullshit" and some smilies.

nt

[dionysus]

18. LOL... yeah, sure.... whatever the good comrade says...

:rofl:

[snooper2]

19. the commies are invading the commies are invading

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

20. recommend.

[Octafish]

24. Remember when Democrats stood for putting government into action to help ALL Americans?

If that's a socialistic idea nowadays, it's because it's been spun that way by Republicans and their toadies.

Is Obama Trying to Dismantle Roosevelt's New Deal?



Whatever did happen to the New Deal for the 21st Century? It seems to have gone unmentioned in any press conferences lately.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Octafish]

31. Followers of Leo Strauss...

...via Henry "Scoop" Jackson: The PNAC and DLC connection originates with "Scoop"

Authoritarians agree: We can't have the mob run the show, you know.

Most importantly: A hearty welcome to DU ForeignandDomestic! Really dig the handle!

[SidDithers]

35. Welcome to DU...

you sound like you're going to fit right in.

:eyes:

Sid

[juajen]

42. Goodness, FD, you leave me breathless!

Firstly, welcome to DU.

Secondly, about twenty words is enough for one sentence. For starters, try putting a period every place you have a comma. Don't forget to capitalize the next word. Thirdly, "they're" is a contraction for "they are", so you need to delete a word.

Sometimes I awaken from my coma and help newbies. I am irritatingly, grammatically correct. I would have corrected you privately, but that is not allowed until you have more posts. The nice thing about me, is that I need a lot of sleep and don't correct people for months. Consider yourself blessed.

If you had added a word to your handle, such as "Rascal", you could have been "Foreign and Domestic Rascal"; hence "FDR". We like that handle around here.

[Karmadillo]

39. Excellent link. "n administiration running a New Deal in reverse" turned out to

be sadly accurate.

[FLPanhandle]

28. How can he cut trillions for "elderly, sick, school kids, & college students"

When we don't spend trillions of dollars elderly, sick, school kids, & college students?

[ForeignandDomestic]

30. ....

You're right the government can only find trillions of dollars when our national security calls for us to bomb some brown people!

[Bobbie Jo]

36. Puppies! You forgot puppies!!

What a compete load of crap. Unrec.

[WinkyDink]

43. There is no quid pro quo, nor can there be. Were the rich to be taxed at 90%, cuts to the poor will

STILL HURT THE POOR.

Cuts to the elderly will STILL HURT THE ELDERLY.

Cuts to the college students will STILL HURT THE college students.

THERE SHOULD BE NO CUTS.