jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (10 posts)

What do budget cuts really mean?

  1. profile image0
    Justsilvieposted 5 years ago

    Budget cuts are needed and wanted until my state needs the money...

    New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, whose state has been battered by super-storm Sandy, said President Obama has been “outstanding” in his response to the disaster that hit the East Coast.
    Christie on Tuesday morning emphasized the severity of the damage, saying 2.4 million people are without power in the Garden State, and that there have been three deaths and substantial flooding.
    “It's a major disaster,” Christie said on NBC’s Today, adding, “We have a battered, battered New Jersey shore that I hope to tour a little bit later on today, but I think the losses are going to be almost incalculable.”

    Christie called federal response “great,” and said that telephone conversations with the president and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials “have been excellent.” He said Obama called him at midnight to check in, the third time the two have spoken during the storm.
    “The president has been outstanding in this,” Christie said.
    Regarding funding for the disaster, Christie said he wasn't concerned with the budget process at the moment, touting the federal funding New Jersey will likely receive.
    “I think we'll get significant federal assistance on this, and the major disaster declaration last night by the president is incredibly helpful in that regard,” Christie said. “We'll work with our federal partners on this.”

    Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who Christie often represents on the trail and on morning shows, is considering a trip to New Jersey, the Associated Press is reporting. But Christie said on Tuesday he was unaware of any plans.
    “I have a job in New Jersey that is much bigger than presidential politics," Christie said on Fox & Friends. "I couldn't care less about that.”
    He echoed the sentiment on CNN's Starting Point, after mentioning his third conversation with Obama.
    (RELATED: Sandy Soaks Up Valuable Campaign Time)
    "(Obama) has been incredibly supportive and helpful to our state and not once did he bring up the election," Christie said on CNN. "If he's not bringing it up, you can be sure that people in New Jersey are not worried about that, primarily if one of the guys running isn't.”

    Source: By Matt Vasilogambros | National Journal – 4 hrs ago

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I am tickled when I think of Rep Paul Ryan criticising the stimulus program sponsored by the President, but was pretty fast about getting himself and his state into the trough to collect the benifits. Hypocrites all!

    2. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Justsilvie, Thank you for sharing this. I was impressed by Governor Christie, to leave rhetoric and campaigning behind to take care of his State, and I am so glad that he gave President Obama credit where credit is due, Obama never gets the credit he deserves on everything the man has accomplished. It is sad that it took a natural disaster for some to see the heart Of our POTUS. Obama is visiting victims and Romney is campaigning, hope people notice this as well. I had been reading an article a couple of days ago about Syria from a mideast news source, There was a picture of an apartment building that had been blown up by a car bomb outside. As I was looking at all the damage from Sandy I saw an eerily similar photgraph of an apartment building. Maybe this is the experience Governor Christie experienced...I know if all hell breaks lose in this country, whether by Mother Nature or otherwise, I want Obama as POTUS....

      1. profile image0
        Justsilvieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Me too!

  2. xstatic profile image60
    xstaticposted 5 years ago

    Wellll....it will be interesting to see how much heartburn this gives the RomOney campaign. FEMA budget cuts would almost surely be included in a Mitt budget, and then what happens in a disaster like this?

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      There is no federal budget for disaster relief, and there should be.  There will always be natural disasters and taking the costs out as deficit is ridiculous.

      1. xstatic profile image60
        xstaticposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        FEMA has a an annual budget. This year it is $ 7.1 billion and the Budget Control Act will allow it to spend up to about $11.3 billion. Will it be enough to cover this disaster? Who knows? If the automatic budget cuts are not changed before January, it will lose about $9 billion for next year.

    2. Xenonlit profile image60
      Xenonlitposted 5 years ago

      This is a good topic about aggressors who must back off when confronted by reality! Christie came across as gracious, but he really is trying to back up from his heated anti-Obama rhetoric now that he needs the president now and for at least two more months!

      (I hate to think about our President not getting a second term. We are in big trouble if he does not. We are prone to some big disasters in our future and cannot afford extremist budget whacking.)

      If that is the entire article, I do recommend that you cut out most of that article, give an introduction and post a link to the real article, or plagiarism could be charged! You are allowed to use part of an entire article.

      1. profile image0
        Justsilvieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I do know the plagiarism rules and that forums are notorious for breaking them. If caught I will blame it on shock, since it is the first nice word about the President I ever heard come out of Christie's mouth and because it was too late to edit when I regained my senses.

    3. Al Bacon profile image66
      Al Baconposted 5 years ago

      The problem with budget cuts is that they are political in nature and seldom practical.  There are a great many things which can be cut which would reduce the budget with little or no affect on taxpayers.  For example, cut lifetime benefits for elected officials after they leave office - most if not all are already millionaires and lifetime benefits only add to their wealth.
      We can sell those billions of dollars of unused land and buildings owned by the federal government which cost millions to maintain and thus cut the maintenance for them out of a budget.
      We can cut those grants which benefit those who need them only to grow richer, such as the Wall Street farmers as opposed to those who farm for a living.
      Budget cuts most of the time mean that our elected officials are playing a shell game and we, the people, are picking the wrong shell.  We hear about high profile expenses but we don't hear about those that are low profile and yet raising the budget higher such as for example the HAARP program which many have never heard of and yet many suspect may have been responsible in part for changes in weather - Youtube has many good videos to show how that works.
      How many have heard of the some 50 million to be loaned to Tessla in order to build a new car and yet that could be cut out of the budget easily since if that is practical there are enough billionaires to build that.
      Budget cuts really are the propaganda tool of those who would convince us why they should be elected or re-elected and often mean nothing at all.