Obama To Cut Services to Poor Urban Americans, Budget Director Notes

rawstory.com

WASHINGTON – The White House budget director offered clues on Sunday to some cuts that President Barack Obama will offer in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal to answer Republican demands for deep spending reductions.

Obama is under strong pressure to cut spending and the U.S. budget deficit after Republicans routed Democrats in last November's congressional elections by pressing for spending cuts.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob "Jack" Lew wrote in an opinion article for The New York Times that Obama is willing to cut financing in half, saving $350 million, for community service block grants that cities and towns that allocate to grassroots groups for them to provide basic necessities for poor people.

This is the kind of work Obama did as a community organizer at the outset of his political career, so "this cut is not easy for him," Lew wrote.

"Yet for the past 30 years, these grants have been allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the recipients are doing," Lew said.

On the face of it, it looks to me like Obama is trying to appease the opposition by throwing a few tidbits their way. The dollar amounts that are being cut are pretty small, considering typical government expenditures overall.

I personally think budget cuts should come in the form of raising taxes on the richest 2%, who will not miss it, rather than to cut from community programs where every dollar makes a difference. Still, there is probably some waste and fraud in those areas, too, so it might be a good idea to rethink a lot of our programs and see where the waste is.

reply to post by Sestias


Hmmm, tell me OP, what is the majority political standings? Rural vs Cities?

Of course Obama is going to cut services to rural areas and states. That is standard operating procedure.

See the government does not want people to live out in the rural areas.

Check this out-Taking Liberty - How Private Property is Being Abolished in America

The past 50 years has been one long train of abuses against the rural. The objective has always been to funnel people off of the land and into the urban prisons to make them all dependent on services from and outside power whether it's their condo association, city hall or federal government.

The government won't be happy until we're all corralled in urban ghettos working for low wages at unskilled jobs to pay for service subscriptions and base quality meeting of simple needs.

Kill the small farmer with regulation, fees and taxes while rewarding the mega farm with subsidies and above-the-law bribery from our FDA, EPA and CDC friends.

Unless you're poor as #, dumb as #, or exceedingly wealthy you are hated by your government.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by SestiasI personally think budget cuts should come in the form of raising taxes on the richest 2%, who will not miss it,

I thik it should be the richest 15% and you have to also have a voted in guideline as to how they became so rich.

Anyone who started at the bottom and built their wealth by hard work should not be subject to an extra tax.
Anyone in banking, politics, public service, insurance, any business that recieves government aid, and so on, should have the same sort of taxes levied that were in the 1950s. Which was actually a pretty prosperoous time for the rest of us.

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. Tax them too high and they wll go elsewhere as have most production, manufacturing and labor jobs in the US.

The fact is that the spending we are dying over is spending that doesn't benefit taxpayers or just about any other citizen at all.

Overseas spending, 800+ military bases in the rest of the world, two wars, hundreds of billions in foriegn aid, hundreds of billions in bailouts and a trillion dollar "stimulus" that haven't helped America in the least, billions on pet projects for politicians, the list goes on. As do the lies.

Cutting a pittance out of the pockets of poor Americans subsidies won't matter to the politicians. No politician goes hungry in this country even though more than 40,000,000 americans are on food stamps and about 1 in 3 working aged adult is without employment.

Cut the budget? Really?

reply to post by badgerprints


The top 1% do own about 40% of the wealth, that does not include what they have hidden. In a way I see it in the National interest to put the lower class into further hardship. When they have nothing more to lose, then they revolt. The government sounds ready for it, after a few people start getting shot everyone else will jump in. It is sad it has to go this way but there are so many entrenched problems in the system and a lack of resolve to confront it. Idk, just calling it as I see it.

reply to post by badgerprints


The top 2% own more than 40% of the nation's wealth -- actually I believe it's much more -- but they are not taxed at as high a rate as the average middle class worker.

Even Warren Buffett says his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does.

Originally posted by Sestias
rawstory.com

WASHINGTON – The White House budget director offered clues on Sunday to some cuts that President Barack Obama will offer in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal to answer Republican demands for deep spending reductions.

Obama is under strong pressure to cut spending and the U.S. budget deficit after Republicans routed Democrats in last November's congressional elections by pressing for spending cuts.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob "Jack" Lew wrote in an opinion article for The New York Times that Obama is willing to cut financing in half, saving $350 million, for community service block grants that cities and towns that allocate to grassroots groups for them to provide basic necessities for poor people.

This is the kind of work Obama did as a community organizer at the outset of his political career, so "this cut is not easy for him," Lew wrote.

"Yet for the past 30 years, these grants have been allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the recipients are doing," Lew said.

On the face of it, it looks to me like Obama is trying to appease the opposition by throwing a few tidbits their way. The dollar amounts that are being cut are pretty small, considering typical government expenditures overall.

I personally think budget cuts should come in the form of raising taxes on the richest 2%, who will not miss it, rather than to cut from community programs where every dollar makes a difference. Still, there is probably some waste and fraud in those areas, too, so it might be a good idea to rethink a lot of our programs and see where the waste is.

I love hearing when people think the rich should be taxed more, because the will not miss it.
Nice.
Take from those that have to give to those don't don't. Hail Cesar Obama.
Long live social justice.

reply to post by macman


I'm taxed also, and I am not rich. As I said before, I pay a higher rate of taxation than the top 2% do, and believe me., I miss it. So I'm making the same sacrifices the uber-rich are being asked to make and more.

The difference is I don't mind paying taxes. Somebody has got to pave my road, collect my garbage, provide public schools and libraries, deliver my mail, etc. etc. I certainly can't afford to do that myself.
I also support the social programs that we have in this country. I don't care that some recipients may not "deserve" the help, as the vast majority who qualify really do, and who am I to judge people's worthiness anyway? I would want the same assistance if I were in their shoes.

I don't think we as a country can just rely on good-hearted people to give only to those THEY want to help and IF they feel like it the day they are asked. Being poor should not subject a person to the whims of the affluent.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by macman

 

I'm taxed also, and I am not rich. As I said before, I pay a higher rate of taxation than the top 2% do, and believe me., I miss it. So I'm making the same sacrifices the uber-rich are being asked to make and more.

The difference is I don't mind paying taxes. Somebody has got to pave my road, collect my garbage, provide public schools and libraries, deliver my mail, etc. etc. I certainly can't afford to do that myself.
I also support the social programs that we have in this country. I don't care that some recipients may not "deserve" the help, as the vast majority who qualify really do, and who am I to judge people's worthiness anyway? I would want the same assistance if I were in their shoes.

I don't think we as a country can just rely on good-hearted people to give only to those THEY want to help and IF they feel like it the day they are asked. Being poor should not subject a person to the whims of the affluent.

edit on 8-2-2011 by Sestias because: (no reason given)

I agree that taxes need to be paid, but the Govt has no right to tax certain people hire/more then others. That is theft.
Anyone pitching the whole "We need to pay taxes" should evolve to the idea that if that is the case, everyone needs to pay equal amounts.
The Fair Tax would do this, yet people in the Liberal Ideas fight this tooth and nail.
Taxing has become a form of control, administrated by Govt bureaucrats.

reply to post by Sestias


Tell me Sestias, have YOU ever heard of the Demon Crat Party or the Rethug Party ever consider removing the Foundation or Trust laws? I mean really, we have all heard that the UBER rich do not pay the taxes they should. We hear about the fact that the PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL taxation rates got cut. But do YOU really believe that is going after the UBER rich? Do you ACTUALLY believe that folks like Gates, Soros, Koch Brothers, etc etc etc would be taxed higher if these individual tax rates would go up?

Do YOU really believe that?

Or are you SOOOOO mistaken in your beliefs, that you are being led down the wrong path?

I have taken several accounting courses. I have also looked into the laws in regards to foundations and trusts. Imagine, that the large political families like Bush, Kennedy, Clinton, plus all the UBER rich do not make salaries and the like. They have these foundations and trusts set up so they do not actually earn salaries, their every expense is paid for by these trusts or foundations.

Time for you to wake up to the true lie, that these folks do not pay taxes like you or I, they created these systems to perpetuate the system as it is.

After you look into what I have said, come on back and explain your views.

350 million off a 1.5 trillion budget deficit is ridiculous. They should emberrassed to even come out and announce this lunacy. Why aren't they stopping medicare fraud? Estimates say 60 billion a year is lost in fraud. Its so rampant its probably much more. Whining about having to cut 350 million cause it might hurt his community organizing resume is a joke.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
350 million off a 1.5 trillion budget deficit is ridiculous. They should emberrassed to even come out and announce this lunacy. Why aren't they stopping medicare fraud? Estimates say 60 billion a year is lost in fraud. Its so rampant its probably much more. Whining about having to cut 350 million cause it might hurt his community organizing resume is a joke.

Is there proof to back up your numbers and claims?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Don't faint, everybody, but I actually agree with you.

I know the uber-rich can and do hire lawyers whose sole job is finding tax loopholes and shelters for them. A possible solution might be to change the laws and get rid of the loopholes and make everybody pay an honest percentage of their income in taxes as the middle class has to do.

As it stands now, the super-rich are paying an even smaller amount of their taxes than usual due to the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. The government is raising the deficit ceiling in order to accommodate them.

I don't mind paying my taxes, but I do mind it if I have to pay relatively more than the rich.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

Don't faint, everybody, but I actually agree with you.

I know the uber-rich can and do hire lawyers whose sole job is finding tax loopholes and shelters for them. A possible solution might be to change the laws and get rid of the loopholes and make everybody pay an honest percentage of their income in taxes as the middle class has to do.

As it stands now, the super-rich are paying an even smaller amount of their taxes than usual due to the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. The government is raising the deficit ceiling in order to accommodate them.

I don't mind paying my taxes, but I do mind it if I have to pay relatively more than the rich.

I agree with that, but if that is the case, then no one should be beating the drum of "The rich should be taxed more".
The flat/fair tax would take care of this issue.