Obama Ready To Quickly Reverse Bush Executive Orders...

Good post. Even if you are in debt sometimes you just have to borrow more. Examples: 1) don't put off a brake job just making it more expensive. 2) Borrow for that last semester of , say, nursing school.

Simpletons day just don't spend money without taking into account what it is spent on.

 

Again, aside from the money, there's a moral issue to some of this. Here's Bishop Tutu...

 

Increasing access and knowledge of birth control and 1st trimester abortion for those not ready to be parents (esp. orders that affect Medicaid, gov employees, etc) vs government funded OBGY & child care, MUCH cheaper.

That is in addition to moving to more fuel efficient cars and greater research efficiency etc as previously noted.

 

Great point but I think overall Refman has a point. Obama's platform does call for a lot of new spending and to enact and enforce the executive orders that are mentioned here will cost money and its not certain where that money will come from. Given the state of the economomy I seriously doubt that those can be paid for along with a tax cut and still have a balanced budget. I don't predict that we will see taxes rise, as I doubt even the heavily Democratic Congress will have the gumption to raise taxes during shaky economic times, but what I think we will see is the Fed continuing to borrow money.

 

bush supporters already complaining about a budget that hasn't been encacted? seriously

 

Speaking for myself I'm not A Bush supporter but I have a very hard time believing that Obama is going to be able to enact his platform and balance the budget or that his executive orders will be revenue neutral.

 

i never said he would, how can he? anyway, a few months ago you were saying that you wanted obama to be more liberal in a discussion about what change meant, so do you want him to balance the budget?

 

I guess he should wait until after 2010, because until then, the war will still be going on. He has also said he will move those troops to Afghanistan, so that war will become more expensive.

 

I don't recall saying that I wanted him to be more liberal only that he was dissapointing many of his liberal supporters by voting to legalize the Bush Admin policy of bypassing the FISA courts for wiretaps.

Personally it would be great if Obama balances the budget.

 

Not by executive orders, but if we are really taking major aim at federal spending, here would be a good place to start.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...0-total_30-fed&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US

Our military spending should probably by 1/4th of what it is (maybe a 10 year goal, adjusting for inflation). That would still be more than China and Russia, combined, plenty enough to "defend us".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/118020322/in/set-72057594137096110/

 

You can hope, but I wouldn't expect it. Especially since he intends to expand the Army and Marines. I suppose you could hope that he makes our military leaner and more efficient, like Rumsfeld was trying to do.

 

Not really true - what it will allow is for those programs to apply for a bigger piece of the federal funding in place, not an increase in federal funding.

Again, not really. R&D costs would be handled by private concerns, although since the technology already exists for that level of mpg, this is really just a red herring.

 

It will certainly take time and we have to slowly get out of the Middle East. And I hope the expanding the Army and Marines discussion is more lip service than reality.

The Clinton Admin really had us going in the right direction in terms of military spending as a function of total government spending, unfortunately that reversed itself since GWB has been in office.

The whole idea of learner and more efficient military, like most claims about "cutting the fat" in government, is easy talk, without a whole lot of substance. This is true whatever claims both candidates were making. If you are talking big improvements towards balancing the budget, it is cutting federal employees (military or others), cutting entitlements some form or another, or increasing revenue. Any other claim is understandable by a politician, but also a bit disingenuous given the scale of problems, as Ross Perot pointed out some 16-17 years ago.

 

To be fair it was actually Bush 1 that started the military downsizing, base closures, etc.

 

Now during a recession that could be the worst in many years is not the time to balance the budget.

 

Yeah but those orders are photocopied many times - it's a substantial hit.

 

GHB does get some credit, but larger changes were during the Clinton admin.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

GHB also more firmly planted us in the ME however with PGW, which started the wheels in motion toward the War in Iraq--so somewhat of a mixed bag. (Granted he and Powell and Co were smart enough to not go into Iraq with large ground forces--but some seeds for a greater conflict were planted.)

 

That's change you can believe in.

oh yeah here is the new do the obama dance.



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/maqF2FpnZy8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/maqF2FpnZy8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I think a lot of people here have totally missed my point. I never said that these things should not be done, I merely pointed out that the notion that all of these things can be done at the same time as a tax cut for 95% of the taxpayers is farcical.

 

Except that a lot of the executive orders placed restrictions on funding. Now that they are gone and a Dem majority in both houses, the spending bills will pass, and that is the goal of the new administration.