Obama is getting rid of 12,000 government buildings

[berriez]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news...erty/index.htm
According to the article:

Agencies are already on track to save $3 billion by the end of next year, and the administration thinks $15 billion can be saved if Congress approves the legislation.

You can see a interactive map here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fis...s-property-map

A chart and graph here, it's pretty big:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I believe this is a helluva good way of getting rid of government waste. Something like this should have been done long ago. This was first begun under Bush but never completed

[zachattack]

I'm sure they thought it through pretty well. I hope they did it smartly and not just "oh this is old, let's toss it".

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Well done Obama hes on a roll before the elections

[Menelik_I]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news...erty/index.htm
According to the article:
You can see a interactive map here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fis...s-property-map

A chart and graph here, it's pretty big:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I believe this is a helluva good way of getting rid of government waste. Something like this should have been done long ago. This was first begun under Bush but never completed

A good thing, but still ridiculous compared to the size of the deficit, plus is there going to buyers for this ?

[MathiasOfAthens]

A good thing, but still ridiculous compared to the size of the deficit, plus is there going to buyers for this ?

God.... enough with oh its not big enough to cut the deficit. As if this would cover the whole deficit, thats not the point. Same with Palin... who I know you dont respect, said cutting oil subsidies is like a drop in the bucket so why do it. But its ok to cut Medicare cause that too is just a larger drop in the bucket?

[Jom]

Nothing is going to eliminate the deficit in one blow, so people complaining that this will only cut a small amount doesn't make sense because it's still cutting some and is therefore a step in the right direction.

[kentuckybandit]

OK I will admit that when I clicked on the map I expected to conveniently see the bulk of 'wasteful buildings' in Red States, though it seems to be quite well spread about. I guess when your mother listened to Rush Limbaugh every day during your childhood, some things become an unwanted reflexive reaction rather than brain triggered LMAO.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The overall debt is like 14 trillion right? And the deficit is like a couple billion... certainly this proposal and some more cuts in other areas could provide a surplus in revenue or perhaps more if tax revenue increases... so we are not going to get 14 trillion in cuts or 14 trillion in revenue in one blow but we can start cutting it down and let me just add something up...

Eliminated the Oil subsidies would gather some 4 Billion back a year in revenue, after 10 years thats 40 billion, but those subsidies plus the proposal in the OP would add enough revenue to the budget to create a surplus... so we wouldnt even need to ing cut medicare so wtf the big problem... omg I just solved the problem I am a genius. Everyone plus rep me.

[Menelik_I]

The overall debt is like 14 trillion right? And the deficit is like a couple billion...

The US deficit is like 800+ Billions actually

I just solved the problem I am a genius. Everyone plus rep me.

You failed miserably

[justicar5]

The US deficit is like 800+ Billions actually



You failed miserably

hideous deficite, never going to get rid of it without at least closing tax loopholes as well as making cuts.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Debt Clock

US debt is $14.26 trillion. Were spending about 3.8 trillion a year and taking in about 2.17 trillion, so we only really need to earn about a trillion more dollars.

So subsidies are 4 billion and Obama said we can save some 9 billion with the OP proposal and then we can restore the tax rate and recover 3.3 Trillion Dollars in tax revenue and call it a night with at least 2 trillion surplus. Boom. CBO projections. The 3.5 trillion dollar number is a projection of loss tax revenue from the last 10 years.

[HissingNewt]

3.3 trillion dollars in more taxes? Why would anyone approve that when it will fall on that same third of the population that pays our taxes right now?

[MathiasOfAthens]

3.3 trillion dollars in more taxes? Why would anyone approve that when it will fall on that same third of the population that pays our taxes right now?

Because it solves the problem at hand without making the poor and the elderly suffer.

[HissingNewt]

Because it solves the problem at hand without making the poor and the elderly suffer.

Mathias, they'll have to take a hit somehow. You can't just put even more taxes on the relatively small portion of the population that actually pays them right now. At what point do they pay more than their fair share? 50%? 70%? When does it stop? When the government decides there's nothing else they need more money for?

[chilon]

Mathias, they'll have to take a hit somehow. You can't just put even more taxes on the relatively small portion of the population that actually pays them right now.

Uh, everyone pays taxes: Sales Tax which adds up if you are poor. The middle class (say $40K a year to 100K a year) pays quite a bit in income tax and property owners have to pay property tax. The only people that really are not affected by the tax burden are the destitute poor and the extreme hyper-rich.

[LegionnaireX]

Uh, everyone pays taxes: Sales Tax which adds up if you are poor. The middle class (say $40K a year to 100K a year) pays quite a bit in income tax and property owners have to pay property tax. The only people that really are not affected by the tax burden are the destitute poor and the extreme hyper-rich.

Everyone pays some kind of tax, but this 45% paying 0 federal income tax is for the birds. If they are going to raise tax rates to 90s levels, then they must also cut out a lot of the write-offs so that everybody will owe something, even if its just a token.

I think the tax brackets need a general overhaul anyway. You've got people like Warren Buffet out there begging for a higher income tax rate. According to current tax law, he would be taxed at the same rate as someone making $375,000. Now, certainly someone making $375,000 is doing quite well for himself, but I would not consider this "super rich." That person maybe a successful physician with a private practice who has two kids in college, a mortgage, and heavy malpractice insurance to pay. A tax hike is going to negatively effect him much more than someone like Buffet who has complete financial freedom and more money than any one man can use.

[HissingNewt]

Uh, everyone pays taxes: Sales Tax which adds up if you are poor. The middle class (say $40K a year to 100K a year) pays quite a bit in income tax and property owners have to pay property tax. The only people that really are not affected by the tax burden are the destitute poor and the extreme hyper-rich.

I'm pretty confident that they get more money back from the government than they pay in sales tax.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Mathias, they'll have to take a hit somehow. You can't just put even more taxes on the relatively small portion of the population that actually pays them right now. At what point do they pay more than their fair share? 50%? 70%? When does it stop? When the government decides there's nothing else they need more money for?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1507...bunked/?page=2

[HissingNewt]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/1507...bunked/?page=2

That didn't answer my question. When are the "rich" (and I use that term loosely for most of them) taxed too much? At what point are they paying more than their fair share?

By the way, one of the points was that some of the "patriotic rich" want to pay more in taxes. That's great. They can donate however much they want to. They don't need to drag along those less fortunate but who are still in the same bracket. Warren Buffett can donate every dollar he has if he wants to. There is nothing but his own greed preventing that.

[xcorps]

Because it solves the problem at hand without making the poor and the elderly suffer.

No it doesn't solve the problem at hand. The problem at hand isn't a lack of money. It's the culture of special interest big government spending that's the problem.

This "trillion dollar revenue" solves the problem much like an aspirin solves Ebola.