I have posted this so many times for so many reasons, I am blue in the face.. but here we go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x27508

I do not even remember what that one was about specifically. because the number of times people have jumped off the edge before they have the full facts in front of them has blurred together.

Until we know what the President is talking about and referring to in his STOU.. having a cardiac arrest over what you do not know seems a little odd.

I do not have a clue what the full ramifications of what spending freezes go where. If you do, then baby I want to know who you are connected to?

The only thing that I have heard that makes any sense at this point is the using of untapped tarp funds for job expansion.. and I am all for that. The money is there.. build build and repair.

Otherwise. I am waiting to see.

I no one's interested, there's no need to nest your thread inside another thread that links to a dead thread.

Usually they are easy answers.
Like once at work. The company put codes on the fax and copy machines. Once your department used up your alloted fax time and copy time, you needed upper level approval to make a copy or fax. This just made it a bit harder to fax or copy information.

Another "freeze" I witnessed stated that senior management would not receive any bonuses this year. Of course they are all making over $100k. The idea that the CEO was not allowed to make more then $420,000 had no real effect on the rest of us. We all got our $.05 per hour raise.

It is easy to freeze spending on homeless projects or helping the needy. We save a couple of bucks and do untold harm to the poor. But the poor sure can suffer - that is what they do. And that is what spending freezes cause.

These are facts.
These are appointments by the president, all of whom don't seem to have America's best interests at heart.

1) it's just a content-free sop to deficit hawks, that won't actually happen

2) it means what he says, which is that everything the federal govt does will be forced to be budget-neutral, except military and defense spending, which of course never have to be budget neutral or indeed be limited in any way by any kind of economic constraint, ever.


what could possibly go wrong?
:eyes:

President Obama today offered a set of proposals for helping America's troubled middle class. All are sensible and worthwhile. But none will bring jobs back. And Americans could be forgiven for wondering how the President plans to enact any of these ideas anyway, when he can no longer muster 60 votes in the Senate.

Like Clinton's, Obama's package of middle class benefits is small potatoes. They're worthwhile but they pale relative to the size and scale of the challenge America's middle class is now facing. Obama can no longer afford to come up with lists of nice things to do. At the least, he's got to do two very big and important things: (1) Enact a second stimulus. It should mainly focus on bailing out state and local governments that are now cutting services and raising taxes, and squeezing the middle class. This would be the best way to reinvigorate the economy quickly. (2) Help distressed homeowners by allowing them to include their mortgage debt in personal bankruptcy -- which will give them far more bargaining leverage with morgage lenders. (Wall Street hates this.)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obamas-tiny-jobs-ideas-fo_b_436757.html

(if the speech goes badly, can we get more cookies though?) :)

:)

:shrug:

to say.

:hi:

not jump on the regressive bandwagon.:)

:hi:

and see what is actually going to be rolled out before going after our own..

My fear is that we will do what we always seem to do ... here is my analogy for it.

We on the left chase each other like yippy dogs fighting over a bone. We'll run in circles around that bone, snipping at each other ... when we could just work together and take the bone.

Meanwhile, the GOP Dobermans stand off to the side salivating ... waiting for us to get tired and give up in exhaustion.

And then they walk over and take the bone.

A lack which, frankly, they have done a lot to provoke.

Maybe the policy will make more sense "after" the speech, but then, I think we are all getting a little frustrated with "Speeches" too.

I will be waiting to see what ACTION the WH takes, and see if they can earn BACK my confidence.

Are all the homeless housed and the hungry fed?

Has the private sector created enough demand to more than offset the loss from the system?

He might very well be have very wise cuts but I've not heard a good reason for not repurposing the resources into the any number of areas they are sorely needed.

It is simple this is goofy economics under the current circumstances. You cannot worry about deficits when fighting a collapse under high unemployment.

I've heard plenty of his pretty speeches before. I am, however, growing very weary of seeing his actions to match the speech.