OBAMA NOT cutting Budget contrary to headlines!!!

[healthmyths]

This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how MSM protects Obama, biases what a voter reads!
NYT's headline: Obama Budget to Include Cuts to Programs in Hopes of Deal!

So when I read NYT I think as a LOW-informed voter that wow Obama IS NOT as bad as the GOP says because he wants CUTS!!!

EVEN though he doesn't want cuts in HOPES of a deal.

from the article:
"Mr. Obama’s proposed deficit reduction would replace those cuts. And if Republicans continue to resist the president, the White House believes that most Americans will blame them for the fiscal paralysis."

So here is the FIRST mention of tax cuts...

"Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said."

FOLKS!!! READ closely !!! "reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits,"
I'm going to shout! THIS IS NOT REDUCING THE benefits... NOT paying out as much as the cost of living would call for!
SO I'm on SS. Instead of getting a 2% increase in 2014 I will get a 1% INCREASE!!!

NOT A REDUCTION in what is being paid which MOST voters would think is happening when they hear "budget cuts"..
because that's what the voter would do or business does.
BUT NOT the government/Obama!
TAX CUT means not paying out as much as was planned i.e. cost-of-living.
So instead of have a 2% increase in the social security payments.. OBAMA is making a CUT!! It will be 1%!!!

See what I mean is all this crap about BUDGET cuts is NOT reducing the budget but the percent that the budget increases!!!

"That means,” the official added, “that the things like C.P.I. that Republican leaders have pushed hard for will only be accepted if Congressional Republicans are willing to do more on revenues.”

So again for all you that don't know D.C.-speak!
Obama is NOT CUTTING the budget i.e. $3 trillion cut to $2.9 trillion THAT is a cut!
OBAMA is NOT CUTTING any expenditures. He is asking for lower INCREASES !!
THAT's HIS CUTTING!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/u...obama-budget.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1&

 

[Sallow]

Yes..don't believe the math.

Believe the crazy voices in your head.

 

[healthmyths]

Yes..don't believe the math.

Believe the crazy voices in your head.

Just a note.. WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS as here are the FACTS!!!

So are you saying the budget Obama submitted reduced from as this 2012 edition of Federal Spending by the Numbers shows,
total federal spending for fiscal year 2012 reached $3.6 trillion, or 22.9 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy.
Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

will be reduced to say $3.400 trillion for example with all the "CUTS" Obama is proposing???

Let's look at the FACTS as to what Obama is projecting for 2013 through 2015.. NOT ONE reduction in OUTLAYS!

In Trillions

• Year Receipts Outlays deficit
• 2011 $2.303 $3.603 $1.300
• 2012 2.469 3.796 $1.327
• 2013 2.902 3.803 $ .981
• 2014 3.215 3.883 $ .668
• 2015 3.450 4.060 $ .610

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

So again... WHAT CUTS???? Where does the WH/Obama projections show any REDUCTIONS in the OUTLAYS??? over 5 years??

 

[bendog]

It would cut the projected deficits of the next ten years. It does not cut next year's budget to be .... say 3% ... less than this year's spending. Would it benefit the country? Sure. Is there any chance the gop will accept the comprimise offer? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It's merely another shot in Obama's long term game. Guns, immigration, taxes, reproductive rights, healthcare ....they all trend away from the teaparty. He's run his last campaign. He's positioning the dems for 2016 and beyond.

And I'm not happy about it, nor am i happy with the teaparty, racists and homophobes, and Grover Norquist.

 

[DiamondDave]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

 

[healthmyths]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

Shallow and others of his ilk are absolutely ignorant when any facts require them to take off their shoes to count above 10!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

You can not fix stupid. You will be saying it to shallow ad nauseum.

 

[edthecynic]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

And you've been shown many more times that if the increase doesn't keep up with inflation it is a loss. Try putting your money under your mattress for 10 years and tell me you didn't take a cut.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[healthmyths]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

And you've been shown many more times that if the increase doesn't keep up with inflation it is a loss. Try putting your money under your mattress for 10 years and tell me you didn't take a cut.

So according to you BECAUSE of INFLATION SS payments MUST increase right?

A) Inflation rate in 2012 was 2.1%

B) Do you think preferences like these would add to the cost of living?
I'd like higher gas prices.."
“Under my plan....electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
"So, if somebody wants to build a coal[electric utility] plant, they can it’s just that it will bankrupt them,!"
Told Brazil.."we'll be your best [oil] customer".
"I favor single payer insurance"..
meaning 1,400 insurance companies stop: paying $100 billion in Fed/state/local taxes as well as LOCAL property taxes putting 400,000 employees let go collecting $6 billion in unemployment checks!

Do you think all those preferences would LOWER the costs of LIVING???

 

[healthmyths]

Among the program spending increased tied to the C.P.I are Social Security, Obamacare, veterans benefits, Pell Grants, and taxes such as the alternative minimum tax.

But in Washington, Democrats view reductions in future growth as cuts and are on record as being against the president's plan.
Social Security would grow under Obama 'cuts' | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[G.T.]

Reductions to future growth are cuts, because in nominal dollars future growth is not really growth - it's stagnant when up against inflation.

You have to think past derp to understand.

If you find yourself hitting your head against a wall going "how dont people get that a decrease in GROWTH is not an actual cut!~!!!!!!!!!" - - - - - it's because YOU'RE the fool played for a low information Voter.

 

[DiamondDave]

Shallow.... you have been told and shown many times that a reduction in increase is not the same as a cut

And you've been shown many more times that if the increase doesn't keep up with inflation it is a loss. Try putting your money under your mattress for 10 years and tell me you didn't take a cut.

The government is not putting money away... it is spending more.. it is not reducing spending in any way, shape, or form

If I make 100K and spend 150K currently and owe 500K... and I anticipate I will spend 160K next year and then say I will only spend 159K, I AM STILL INCREASING SPENDING AND MY DEBT IS STILL INCREASING.... that is analogous to what is going on... not whether I just stick money under a mattress