Obama’s $100M Budget Cut Put In Perspective
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Money, VideoAs I inferred when I first heard about the budget cuts, it’s a good start. And that’s all it is. A start. Because ultimately $100M is not a lot of money, but when you keep trimming and finding savings, it all begins to add up.
Still, it is a rather small number when compared the budget deficit and this video does a good job of showing what that means.
Thoughts?
This entry was posted on Friday, May 1st, 2009 and is filed under Money, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 am
Too bad he didn’t show the several handfuls of pennies the Bush crew was hiding under the table pretending it didn’t exist so they could fund their war.
I share the outrage over spending, I really do. Give me a couple of months and I’d take a whole slew of pennies off the table, and then move that blue line to the right by bringing in more revenues (heck yeah, raise taxes–it’s time someone actually is honest and talks about raising taxes somewhat to pay down the debt).
But the difference between the GOP and Dems is that with the Dems all the pennies are on the table for everyone to see–the GOP will hid some pennies under the table, take away five pennies and put in nickels but then hide the nickels under some pennies and call them pennies, take some pennies off the table and give them to some rich friends and corporations and then just plain stand next to the table and say either , “What pennies?” or “They’re just pennies. Pennies don’t matter. Ronald Reagan proved that.”
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
[...] H/T: Donklephant [...]
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Justin, isn’t this the exact same thing that you called on us all to “celebrate” as an “achievement” just a few days ago?
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I believe he said it was a drop in the bucket but a step nonetheless if I remember correctly
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Because ultimately $100M is not a lot of money, but when you keep trimming and finding savings, it all begins to add up.”
Agreed, but what was disheartening was the big deal Obama made over it. Yes, we can say it’s a step in the right direction, but if we’re going to restore fiscal responsibility, it’s like a step in the right direction from New York to LA. Better than a step in the wrong direction, but not worth boasting about. You’re right that little steps can add up, but to make a difference, Obama would have to make a lot of these little steps, and if he plans on making as big of a deal over each one of them, he won’t have enough time in his presidency. So there’s no getting around the fact that this was a PR stunt.
As a side note: isn’t it illegal to cut a penny into fourths? Couldn’t he of just used 4 times as many pennies? I suppose they aren’t so easy to come by… you know… in this economy. And besides, that wouldn’t have had such a dramatic effect.
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
So there’s no getting around the fact that this was a PR stunt.
Granted but I for one was glad not to see the military and massive quantities of flags not used as a cheap stunt for a change.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 am
When will the time come when one can criticize something Obama does without being reminded of something Bush did that was worse? I doubt Obama wants to go down in history as “The president that at least wasn’t as bad as Bush.”
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
There will likely never be a time where any future President won’t be able to make that claim.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
And yet you use him as your bar by which you judge Obama?
I didn’t intend to pick on you, Kevin. You’re not doing anything different than I’ve heard many other do. But I’ve just heard this line of reasoning one too many time.
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Yeah, Mike, I can see why you don’t want to think about Bush too much.
But, here’s the thing – until some major GOP leader admits that Bush messed up all over the place, prepare to spend alot of time low on power. Til then, voters won’t know if they’re electing another Bush. Sooner or later, such a leader will come – my guess is, whenever you get a change of generation as Presidential nominee.
And, in the meantime, I’m sorry, but you’d better prepare to hear his name alot, because he DID mess up alot, and those are the simple facts. People like to talk, gossip, chat and especially grumble about their leaders alot. And, his extraordinary screwup level brings even more conversation about where on the Worst Presidents List he belongs, and constant comparisons between him and Obama like the one that got to you. Sorry….
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Jason, yes that’s what I said. Your point?
I posted this because I thought it was interesting. I don’t agree with everything they say in the video, but it does lend some perspective.
Mike, if you think talking about it in his weekly address and including it in a press conference is making a big deal of it, well, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s not like he’s continuing to tout it day in and day out.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
That’s pretty comical that someone from the right wants us to stop trotting out Bush’s disasterous policies 100 days into the Obama administration when the right has been blaming Clinton for things for the past 8 years.
At least when the left is blaming Bush, there is actually some reality behind it.
Even when there is some truth to criticism leveled at Clinton–and let me tell you I was never a huge fan of Clinton, it’s almost comical to hear the right level their charges.
Just a few days ago, Tilly blames Clinton (partially) for the banking crisis for signing the legisltion repealing the Glass Steagal Act. I agree. Clinton should never have signed that–but what did he sign? He signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And who were the authors of this?
U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas). U.S. Representatives Jim Leach (R-Iowa). U.S. Rep Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia).
Notice anything in common. I put the Rs in to make it easy. That;s right, Republicans blame Clinton for signing Republican legislation.
If it wasn’t so tragically absurd, I’d be laughing.
So. To answer your question Mike. We will blame Bush (and all the Republican policies going back to Reagan) for everything he (they) deserve blame for for as long as it is relevent–and it will be relevent for a looooong time.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mike-
Was out of town all day or I would have given more than a flippant answer. First, I don’t judge Obama by Bush. IMO, they are in different leagues completely.
My rip on Bush was that I don’t think ripping any politician for trying to put positive spin on any action is even worth commenting on. There isn’t a politician alive who doesn’t do it. Do you get the mailings from whoever your rep is? So if it was at that level, I do think that what was worth complaining about was the manipulation of service members and the flag followed with the other side is with the terrorists. It should be beneath either party.
If you want serious complaints about Obama, here are a few. If he doesn’t follow the law and pursue the torture violations, his flippant response to marijuana legislation and if he puts someone on the Court with any concern whatsoever to what the Right wants. We need some balance on the court and I for one would like someone who will fight like hell for the little guy. Someone in the mold of Jonathan Turley, Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich. We have more than represented the other side of America. We need some balance. I’ll be watching who Simon wants the least and giving any of them a hard look.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Jon, I don’t have a problem talking about Bush. I do have a problem excusing everything Obama does because Bush was worse.
Justin, yes, I think that qualifies as making a big deal about it. If someone wants to know what’s important to the president, and only has a few minutes to find out, I would think the weekly address would be the best place to go, so I would think he would talk about the issues he thinks are most important during that time.
gerryf, there is a difference between blame and excusing. There is certainly a lot that Obama can blame on Bush at this point. But his decision to ask for 100 million and cuts and try to use it has proof that he is fiscally responsible has nothing to do with Bush.
Kevin, you’re right. There are much more important things to talk about. I should not be using my energy concerning myself about this. Some have accused me of being disingenuous when I say this, but I almost voted for Obama. I wanted to vote for him because I almost believed his call for a change in the status quo of politics. I wanted to believe we could get past partisan quibbling. What upsets me about this and other relatively small things (such as the obsession over Rush, which clearly was designed to twist the knife in the GOP a little more) that Obama has done is that it shows that he is willing to stoop to politics as usual when he believes it won’t hurt him. That’s disappointing, but perhaps like you I should get over it and get used to the spin.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That video is great. I agree…I mean, of course it is a step in the right direction. And we do need to be careful since there are other things at stake–namely, healthcare, etc. But the amount he proposes to cut is really nothing at all. I just hope that–perhaps after he starts working on the whole health reform goals–these budget cuts will start to grow. That would be helpful. And, truthfully, pretty necessary.
I watched an interesting video on Obama’s proposed budget plans today at newsy.com. The video does a good job of showing a few different perspectives from different sources. It’s worth watching:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/budget_cuts_a_drop_in_the_bucket/