Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama team draws sharp Hill questions on budget

Tue Feb 2, 2010 3:18 AM EST
business, politics, us, capitol-hill, obama, barack-obama, budget
Tom Raum, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 10 photos
<p>President Barack Obama, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, delivers a statement on his budget that he sent to Congress, Monday, Feb. 1, 2010, in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)</p>

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, delivers a statement on his budget that he sent to Congress, Monday, Feb. 1, 2010, in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's $3.8 trillion budget outline drew bipartisan fire on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Republicans complaining it doesn't address deficits soon enough and raises taxes too much. Democrats balked at some of Obama's spending cuts.

It was a rocky reception for the day-old document, underscoring election-year restlessness and rising public anger at bailouts, bonuses and ballooning deficits. The complaints across party lines suggested it could be difficult for Obama to win support for key parts of his budget, even from members of his own party.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called Obama's proposal to cancel NASA's manned moon return program shortsighted. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., derided his proposal to include Army Corps projects in a proposed partial three-year spending freeze. Sen. Jay Rockfeller, D-W.Va., said environmental priorities in the budget would unfairly burden coal states such as his.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, under grilling by the Senate Finance Committee, said that despite the lively crossfire he could see a bipartisan consensus building that "deficits matter, tax cuts are not free."

"The American people want to see their leaders coming together and bringing practical solutions" to the problems created by the worst downturn since the 1930s, Geithner said.

In one sign of possible common ground, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., suggested there is support across party lines for Obama's proposal to give companies a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker they hire in 2010.

"We need to work on legislation that will create jobs. And we need to work across the aisle, so that the legislation on which we work can become law," Baucus said.

Even so, Obama may not be able to count on one Republican senator who has worked with Democrats in the past. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, blasted Obama's effort to create jobs while proposing higher taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. Snowe said the tax increase would also hit small businesses, leaving many owners unwilling to start hiring again because of uncertainties over future tax liabilities. "Who is going to take the risk?" Snowe asked.

One contentious area was Obama's proposal to draw up to $30 billion remaining in the $700 billion bank bailout program, enacted in 2008, to invest in community banks to encourage them to lend to small businesses. Obama promoted the program on Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Nashua, N.H.

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg argued that money from the Toxic Asset Relief Program that is left over or repaid by banks is by law supposed to go toward paying down federal debt. "It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses," Gregg told White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Orszag replied that the administration was well aware of the provision in the TARP legislation — and that's why it is seeking legislation to authorize the program.

But separately, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told Geithner the administration shouldn't wait for legislation to OK such small-business loans, it should just extend the money — as it had done in using TARP funds to help bail out automakers and Wall Street financial giants.

The government "put the screws to the community banks and gave all the money to the big banks. Right now people are cutting lines of credit to small business," Cantwell complained.

The administration has also proposed a $90 billion tax on big banks over ten years to help recoup losses from the TARP program. Geithner told senators the U.S. might have to extend such a tax — the administration calls it a "fee" — beyond the ten years if bailout costs haven't been recouped by then.

The Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, joined Republican Gregg in faulting the administration for not doing enough to stanch the deficit flood.

"I don't see the focus on bringing down that long-term debt," Conrad said. Years of deficit spending, aggravated by the recession and two wars, have swollen the national debt to a whopping $12.3 trillion.

While Obama's economic team was sparring with members of the Senate Finance and Budget committees, his Pentagon team was defending its part of the budget before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the $768.2 billion defense share of the budget would help pay for "a broad portfolio of military capabilities" as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and help the U.S. "prepare for a much broader range of security capabilities" for the future.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel that the war in Afghanistan is now the Pentagon's top priority, adding: "The Afghan people are the center of gravity and defeat of al-Qaida the primary goal."

__

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Tom Raum's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (18)
Concerned75

Mr. Obama himself hinted at his own concern when he announced in early December that he planned to send 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan, but insisted that the United States could not afford to stay for long.

“Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power,” he told cadets at West Point. “It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.”

Obama made a great comment here. (this is a excerpt from a NYT article) He speaks of our properity and power. It illustrates the importance of our properity and power. It is clear we are a properous and powerful nation. It proves we have the ability to achieve.

And then he explained why even a “war of necessity,” as he called Afghanistan last summer, could not last for long.

“That’s why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended,” he said then, “because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.”

Then he goes into this. He talks about the necessity of the war. He could have left out the open ended part. No one goes to war expecting to fight it for ever. But the next comment blew me away. He is trying to build a nation? Just a few lines before he spoke of nation already built that is prosperous and strong.

Now to tie this into the subject. He says spending is our ticket out. This budget proposal shows that. But yet he ties our hands in doing it. look at the oil and gas industry. No drilling because of the enviroment. Yet we loan A Brazilian company to drill of the coast of Brazil. China is drilling jsut off our coast just far enough out to be in international waters. And with horizontal drilling. They could be drill our resources. Also they do no t have the inspections and regulations we have. The environment is at risk. Our Environment with no benefit from the drilling.

Do not now or ever agree with raising one groups taxes. We are all Americans regardless of our incomes. Not only that. Doing actions like this actually stifle growth. So stop handcuffing our industry, promoting industry overseas, and spnding money that we do not have.

China is going full steam ahead. They are in Africa heavy. And we are lagging and hand cuffing ourselves. We use the environment concerns and class wars to achieve the objective. The objective is clear. Change the economic system of this country away from capitalism. The very system that made us properous and strong.

    Reply#1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 11:36 AM EST
    lambnlions

    Now to tie this into the subject. He says spending is our ticket out. This budget proposal shows that. But yet he ties our hands in doing it. look at the oil and gas industry. No drilling because of the enviroment. Yet we loan A Brazilian company to drill of the coast of Brazil. China is drilling jsut off our coast just far enough out to be in international waters. And with horizontal drilling. They could be drill our resources. Also they do no t have the inspections and regulations we have. The environment is at risk. Our Environment with no benefit from the drilling

    When the next Exxon Valdez along the coast of Florida, Texas, California, North Carolina, where will you be? We've mucked up the earth enough as it is, we were the major contributor during the industrial age, it's time to rethink our approaches. It's done nothing but make few big business rich, and banks richer. Permit me to clarify position: NO DRILLING.

      #1.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 1:34 PM EST
      Concerned75

      NO DRILLING equates to ships like the Valdez bringing crude oil into our ports. You do realize Exxonmobil is a leader in oil imports. You do realize if the wells China has off our coast in International Waters poses a greater risk because we have no regulations on them and we get no benefit from the drilling.

      You do realize we are in an economic recession. Restricting those so called people from making profits restricts others from earning any thing and remaining unemployed. The are many business that support the oilfield jsut like all the businesses that support the Auto makers. And one other thing. If the Rich do not produce and make money then who is going to pay the tax increases.

      Where will I stand on the next Valdez. Same place I did before. Work to contain it. Work to clean. Work to limit the Eco damage. Make Exxon (or whoever) financially responsible for the cost. That is where I will stand.

      So we have a choice. Do we become financially stable, properous and employed by taking risk? Or do we not take a risk and continue the way we are. Steadily going into debt and becoming weaker. Even Obama stated we were a Properous and powerful nation. And it was the properous part hat made us powerful. So yes no drill if we want to be dependant on other countries and in debt to them. That is not the only industry hurting. But it the one I am most familiar with.

      Capitalism and free enterprise is under attack. We are hand cuffing our industry and letting China equal us. You do realize thier currancy is not equal to the dollar. But we are attacking the very system that made us wealthy. Not only that we are not allowing anyone to pursue the American Dream. Well they can pursue it buyt if you get there you wil be taxed out of existance.

        #1.2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 1:56 PM EST
        lambnlions

        I respect and understand your position. You're not ready to be weened off of oil just yet, I get it. Understanding your concerns about China, Exxon, the International waters, tax increases. I do, but honestly what policy will changed that has gotten us here in the situations the nations in? None. We drill, same old crew makes the money, etc, etc.. we back in the rut, again;companies that promote policies in operations isn't going to change all because you think you see a way clear for the over all people?

        We both seem to want whats best for our country, only your methods has been tried before and here we are. It's time for new thinking, and oil drilling isn't it.

        Capitalism and free enterprise is under attack

        I'm sorry that you bought into the "capitalistic propoghanda the banks brought to government around WWI", not just because we are really a Republic, but because in a capitalistic society, only the rich get richers, while the masses work for them.

        China's industry is not our problem. We tell them our findings of earth warming and let them go their way. The old proverbs about the camel to water comes to mind.

        I don't know you, nor you me; I think, but trust me when I tell you; that would be one of the worse moves we make as a nation.

          #1.3 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 2:35 PM EST
          Concerned75

          lambnlions I have no ill will towards you. This is a discussion and not a personal attack. Yes I am stuck in my views. I happen not to think that the global climate is crisis. Sorry but I didn't swallow that one. I am for protecting the environment. But there is a huge difference between that and total shut down of our economic system.

          I have seen windmills. I also know it is expensive. And the maintinance versus the power generation doesn't even compare to oil. ANd who ever thought of putting our food into the gas did not think that one through too well. You realize we had to import wheat last year. We never have imported wheat. Note to self. Do not use food to fuel your auto. Bad idea.

          Nuclear plants I support. But people fear those too much. Yet France is powered by nuclear. Funny but we do not hear about all the nuclear accidents in France. ANd one other thing do not destroy your energy source till you have the next source in place. But restricting your present source to grow a new source is ridiculous. ANd one thing. With prosperity comes power. Now if China becoames properous and we still think the rich have to pay. Soon China will have the power. We already are in debt to them.

          It is not just the oil drilling. It is all the support companies and jobs the oilfield has. It is a major industry in this country. One that has grew the wealth of the country as a whole. Where do we think jobs come from.

          The thought that only the rich get richer and the middle class works for them. Here is a clue. Where are we going to work if we don't work for them? That is kind of like biting the hand that feeds you. I work everyday. I make a meger wage. Mostly because I did not apply myself in school and make something better for myself. The opportunity was there and I blew it. But I am happy I have a job and pay my bills. No One in this world owes me anything.

          China's industry is not our problem. But if you think about it. When we were growing we were like China. ALthough China nationalize everything we had free enterprise (capitalism). We grew prosperous and powerful. So powerful we take it for granted and quit working. Now China is working. I am proud the refused the Global warming. It shows they are more concerned about their country than some theory that is quite frankly weak. China does not want outsiders telling them what is good for China. We sure do though. We want a world organization governing us and taking our money. Well some of us anyway. I still prefer to be free and accept the responsibilities that come with freedom.

            #1.4 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 6:47 PM EST
            lambnlions

            Sorry but I didn't swallow that one. I am for protecting the environment. But there is a huge difference between that and total shut down of our economic system.

            Whether you swallow the environmental talks or not, one thing is evident, the climate is changing, too hot winters, and most winters no where near what they were say 10 years ago.

            I have seen windmills. I also know it is expensive. And the maintinance versus the power generation doesn't even compare to oil

            My friend, nobody knows how expensive they are more than I, I think. I've been watching alternative energy sources for years, waiting for the prices to move. It's because the establishment has no competition to where prices are steady within, is why the prices are the way they are. Should Obama hold to his pledge, opening these sort off factories in America, should drive the prices of all alternates down, to a point where the average family can buy a few. Look at FORD for with his mass production, cars went from a life time wages, to a middle income salary practically over night.

            You realize we had to import wheat last year

            With companies like ConAgra and others who're getting subsidies not to grow, you would think there were some sort of conspiracy going on, had anyone paid the whole small farmer issue any mind; buying up the small farmers land, seemingly with insidious motives to corner markets,... that my friend is our leaders fault for dropping the ball, where the plays mattered most.

            But people fear those too much. Yet France is powered by nuclear. Funny but we do not hear about all the nuclear accidents in France. ANd one other thing do not destroy your energy source till you have the next source in place. But restricting your present source to grow a new source is ridiculous. ANd one thing. With prosperity comes power. Now if China becoames properous and we still think the rich have to pay. Soon China will have the power. We already are in debt to them.

            People have good reason to fear nuclear plants in the US. Remember 3 mile island, do you know how many people actually died from that? More than the US surveys saying that's a fact. Let's not forget Tennessee's all of a sudden bloom in deformed amphibians, over clover-ed clovers, all hinting of a sign of a leakage, but it's hardly anywhere in public new? Sticking to my guns here, "There is more job in industrial production of Alternate fuels and energy than there is in nuclear, and those will be the real stimulator of our future economy. I'm not saying restrict our growth, I'm saying NO MORE, if you have to drill, drill other wills, where you already are. Twice as fast out the ground is better than one any day. The China issue is my Achilles heal, insomuch as the degree of anger I feel, watching the nation be sold out the way it has been. I for one did not tell my representative to go in there and tell Obama to take money from anyone, did you? Every time I look at the whole problem, I keep seeing this move to breaking our economy so that this one world currency program, I keep hearing about can happen. How true it is, I'm not sure, but the more I analyze what I'm reading and seeing...

            It is not just the oil drilling. It is all the support companies and jobs the oilfield has. It is a major industry in this country. One that has grew the wealth of the country as a whole. Where do we think jobs come from.

            OIL: who gets hired, the pipe makers factory, the truck movers, the rigging workers, hopefully the refinery, the gas stations. Did I miss anyone?

            Alternates Fuels: the die makers, iron casters, the punch machine workers, the mechanics, stock persons, forklift persons, truckers, warehouse workers, sales persons, technicians, electricians, Installers chemist,engineers; I'm sure I'm missing a few, it's getting sort of late. And this isn't just one or two oil drilling rigs, this is dozens of warehouses in a chain of doing one thing: making energy cheaper.

            The obvious choice in terms of providing jobs clear.

            The thought that only the rich get richer and the middle class works for them. Here is a clue. Where are we going to work if we don't work for them?

            Well we're Ameri Cans buddy, we living in the land of the free, home of the brave filled with opportunity for those willing to work hard enough. We work for ourselves, even if we have to start back at digging ditches for the neighbors. I worked in trucking for myself for the pass 8 years, with two rigs and two reefer trailers out back. Know why their out back? Because $4.29 a gallon fuel, cost nearly a thousand dollar to full up to deliver a $1500. load. deduct eating, showers, brokers thieving, etc.. and there's the fuel. I allowed you in to let you see, that I fully understand the need for fuel. It's why I shout, No More drilling, find another way. Driving around feeling like you're hamstrung by the gonads, should never happen again. Drilling will only solve the short term problem, and as your "democracy", we saw where that (gut) us.

            We want a world organization governing us and taking our money. Well some of us anyway. I still prefer to be free and accept the responsibilities that come with freedom

            Not one for being told much of what to do in my old age myself. I've no idea where this mentality of survetuted in our elected officials came from when it comes to dealing with other nations, I suspect it started at Bush 1, but that's another debate. I respect your position, but I still feel the Alternate Energy solution is the longevity route.

              #1.5 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 12:51 AM EST
              Concerned75

              in trucking too. ( by the way truckers kill themselves in rates. Not very good businessmen. Ask arrow trucking about cheaper rate gets the frieght idea) Don't need to tell me about fuel cost. it supassed the insurance cost and I thought those we too high. The worst part. Years ago the gas shortage was a hoax. I am in oilfiled trucking. The $5.00 a gallon gas was a hoax. Congress and the governemtn played a huge part in that. They had to create a crisis. When things are good things won't change. We only need change when things are bad. Create a crisis and you will get change everytime.

              Never let a crisis go to waste. get your agenda moving by creating a crisis.

              You left a whole host of jobs out of the oil industry. As sure as you missed a few out of the Alternative fuel. Now wht I am saying is go ahead and explore Alternaive. But do not destroy what we have to do it. By the way. Nuclear is the cleanest least expensive way to produce power. I do not fear it.

              Actually the isea of us serving the Governemtn is not new. Bush didn't start it. We have allowed the Governemtn to gain more and more control and ignore the constitution. I do know Obama is jsut like the men before him. I dont blame him for starting it. But I do blame him for continuing it. And we the people allow it.

                #1.6 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:42 PM EST
                Reply
                Greg Johnson-900798

                obama can pitch all he wants. His proposed budget is unrealistic and Congress knows it. The only way to get the economy back on track is to let the private sector loose. Unfortunately, we have a president who only understands government spending.

                  Reply#2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 11:51 AM EST
                  ObamaTheLoser2012

                  This LOSER of a President Obama is the most "anti-business" president since Herbert Hoover! Businesses will not hire during this JOKER's administration NOT knowing what taxes and regulations they will be operating their companies under?

                    #2.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:56 PM EST
                    Reply
                    lambnlions

                    Top administration officials mounted a strong sales pitch on Capitol Hill on Tuesday for President Barack Obama's day-old $3.8 trillion budget, saying it would help lift the economy and keep the nation strong.

                    Please forgive me, my sense isn't any good, but where's the strong pitch for getting factories open to create Solar paneling, wind turbines and alternative fuels jobs? Where's the strong pitch for the training and workers of the new alternative fuels we elected him to create?

                    Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the $768.2 billion defense part of the budget would help pay for "a broad portfolio of military capabilities" as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    Well go defense, still think it could have been used to help those people with farming equipment, new hospitals, etc creating jobs for us and them, over there; instead of raining bullets, bombs and insurgencies on them. So I'm a bleeding heart. Have you never heard of overcoming your enemy with love? When their people see how much we're helping them be a nation of who they think they want to be, instead of helping war, who will they love? Hey!, what do I know... huh. Protect America buddies.

                    Gates said the spending would also help the United States "prepare for a much broader range of security capabilities."

                    Wake up already? Taking nothing lightly, aren't we in an already tight enough box as it is? Aren't we using, "the war on terror" just a bit over board here? It's hard enough to get a driver licenses, to go to an island that I've been raised on from birth, U.S. Citizen now are required to have passports to visit off nation U.S. territories? We've gotten ridiculously paranoid. Now that's not to say we shouldn't keep an eye on our boarders, it's simply to say, " Wake Up Already."' When they say, "much broader range of security", just what exactly do they mean, because I'm already feeling as if the Gestapos are here?

                    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel that the war in Afghanistan is now the Pentagon's top priority. "The Afghan people are the center of gravity and defeat of al-Qaida the primary goal," he said.

                    If the Afghanistan people are the center of gravity as stated here, my suggestion above stands. You gain people with good health, provisions,and a way to help them help themselves, not bitterness and bullets. If the Afghan people see you building a hospital that will help their daughters and sons be well, not to many of them would likely aid Al Qaida in any ways, if anything, some would alert us. When we're planting fields full of food with their help, why should a hungry man be angry? It might not be the perfect solution, but the only person winning in this war, are the bullet makers and the banks we borrowing money from to pay for these wars. That said, What say we just make that huge monumental move towards leaving our soldiers armed, but instead of tanks, we send some plowing machines; instead of dozers and land mine personels we send concrete mixers and so on? If we treat them like brothers and sisters, what can we gain? Family.

                    Administration officials were testifying at three separate committees to outline Obama's new budget, stuffed with initiatives to spark jobs and lift the economy.

                    Mr. Obi One, sir. The reality is not much business are hiring, and no amount of incentives will get them to hire, at levels needed in this country to bring the economy up. Let's face that fact once and for all , why don't we. Pessimist you might thing, contrary; People are seeing the signs everywhere they turn, their media governs their minds and opinions. Nobody will hire like you want them too. The only cure for this nation is to make her competitive again. Oil is steadily becoming more and more a policy maker. Corporations are now in line to have government help turn us into products for their uses (nothings changed). The only, ONLY way you and that fat head senate / congress can solve this issue is to just get out there and open companies and put people to work, making products at reasonable rates, to where first our own people can buy them, use them, save money that can be redirected.

                    Solar companies and turbine companies would generate tons of jobs, making products most Americans cannot afford at present rates. In their spending here, it would save tons of cash in the long run for other things like, good health insurance, better and newer cars, home improvements and so on. This first step alone could put America back on the ball. Other nations realizing now that their imports is threatened, will drop their prices to match and compete, and after all isn't that what this country is about?

                      Reply#3 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:11 PM EST
                      ObamaTheLoser2012

                      Solar and wind power will only makeup for less than 10% of all energy needed by this nation....it is all a WASTE of money by taxpayers!

                      Small Impact Nuclear Reactors that are used by our Navy for Subs, Aircraft Carriers and Warships. One reactor can supply all the power needed by the tallest skyscraper in NYC! If it's safe for our sailors, it's safe for citizens working in the downtown cities like NYC!

                        #3.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:52 PM EST
                        lambnlions

                        One reactor can supply all the power needed by the tallest skyscraper in NYC! If it's safe for our sailors, it's safe for citizens working in the downtown cities like NYC!

                        Please don't give me wrong, a step towards making jogbs is the real goal, generating commerce is the ultimate goal. It takes far fewer personnel to run a nuclear plant, than it does for solar or turbine factory; sure the constructions jobs there for a while until the plants build, but how many nuclear physicist do you know qualified enough to work in one of those plants? Fewer jobs.
                        Now as for the safety in working around nuclear plants? The stats might show a fair safety rating all around, but how much will it cost to bury it, and how many generations down the line will have to deal with it? What if for some unexpected reason an earth quake happen where mass amounts of this toxic chem. is? It might be 10% according to your stats, but I know home owners who are tired of giving a bulk of their money to power companies as it is, and would rather use their money for some of the things listed above.

                          #3.2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 1:03 PM EST
                          Reply
                          ObamaTheLoser2012

                          Most of this budget will KILL jobs rather than CREATE any jobs!

                          It's all about spending on Big Government and taxing business into BANKRUPTCY!

                            Reply#4 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:48 PM EST
                            Andi-1045453

                            How so? And what do you propose, then? We can't afford to do NOTHING

                              #4.1 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 1:13 PM EST
                              Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                              Reply
                              Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                              David Noah

                              What may appear to be idiotic and uncontrolled spending may actually be very calculated and deliberate.

                              I suggest you learn about the Cloward Piven strategy on your own. Just do a search for "Cloward Piven" and draw your own conclusions...

                              http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

                              "First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia Universitysociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven (today Piven is an honorary chair for the Democratic Socialists of America), the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#6 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 10:26 PM EST
                              Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                              Leave a Comment:
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                              FUN STUFF:
                              • Leaderboard |
                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                              • Top of the Vine |
                              • Newsvine Live |
                              • Newsvine Archives |
                              • The Greenhouse
                              COMPANY STUFF:
                              • Code of Honor |
                              • Company Info |
                              • Contact Us |
                              • Jobs |
                              • User Agreement |
                              • Privacy Policy |
                              • About our ads
                              LEGAL STUFF:
                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com