PDA

View Full Version : Finally, CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!



LWW
04-04-2011, 06:55 AM
I don't think it goes far enough, but it's a down payment on fiscal sanity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican plan for the 2012 budget would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, more than even the president's debt commission proposed, with spending caps as well as changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, its principal author said Sunday.

The spending blueprint from Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is to be released Tuesday. It deals with the budget year that begins Oct. 1, not the current one that is the subject of negotiations aimed at preventing a partial government shutdown on Friday.

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Ryan said budget writers are working out the 2012 numbers with the Congressional Budget Office, but he said the overall spending reductions would come to "a lot more" than $4 trillion. The debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama recommended a plan that it said would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction. </div></div>

I predict that dear leader and his followers will oppose this, even though it is what was suggested by dear leader's own debt commission.

A plan like this will almost certainly never pass as long as the dems control the senate and presidency, which pushes this out to 2014 for implementation, which will mean even more cuts ... and faster.

Once this happens, dear leader and his followers will bemoan how it will destroy America ... and then when it works give dear leader credit for his omniscience.

This actually bothers me not as it is what must be done.

HOPE AND CHANGE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2012_BUDGET?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-03-10-33-40)

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 12:19 PM
I predict that dear leader and his followers will oppose this, even though it is what was suggested by dear leader's own debt commission.

Proposed but not passed, with Rep. Paul Ryan, a member, among the 'no' votes. Obama had no commitment to implementing something that couldn't even pass his debt commission.

BTW, this language of 'cutting' is more than slightly misleading.

Even with that level of cut from the baseline, the debt will still be going up. This is nowhere near enough to begin to reduce debt accumulation, let alone stop the increase, or still yet reduce the national debt.

I realize you didn't say it would, and probably know it doesn't (as you say, you don't think it goes far enough, but it's a down payment).

But to be clear to others, you'd need perhaps 5 times this amount to clear up on-going deficits, and start a minimal reduction in the national debt. Which won't happen, and isn't desirable.

This country has had significant national debt reduction, and even total or effectively zeroed out national debt, perhaps 7 times or so. Each and every time that occurred was immediately followed by a bad panic, recession/depression, or financial crisis.

Why? That's a good question, and it bears looking into.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 12:55 PM
It's interesting how no one comments on two deficit/debt reduction milestones hit by Obama's budgets and legislation.

First is the single largest year-over-year reduction in the annual deficit.

Second, the 75-projection of total deficit accumulation (i.e., piled on national debt totals) came down $20 trillion dollars because of ACA, from over $70 trillion to close to $50 trillion.

Far from a good down payment (which still needs to be passed), these things are already done and in the law.

Of course, the GOP wants to jack up the 75-year projection by that same $20 trillion (by canceling ACA without any comparable replacement).

LWW
04-04-2011, 01:23 PM
WOW!

Just WOW!

So the regime increases the defict by 800% ... and then whacks it a tad and they are heros?

By that logic if I rob Fort Knox and then give a billion to the poor I should be exempted from the law.

sack316
04-04-2011, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First is the single largest year-over-year reduction in the annual deficit.
</div></div>

Which year from which?

Sack

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First is the single largest year-over-year reduction in the annual deficit.
</div></div>

Which year from which?

Sack </div></div>

FY '09 to FY '10.

While LWW tries to fool people (or maybe other people fooled him?) that the Bush administration's '09 deficit was tiny, the CBO said it was $1.2 trillion prior to anything O did, once putting the war costs into the budget instead of pretending they were unforeseen 'emergency' expenditures is accounted for.

pooltchr
04-04-2011, 03:20 PM
And how much were the war costs in 09 and 10?

(you know....those wars that Barry told us would have ended 18 months after he took over)

Steve

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 04:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And how much were the war costs in 09 and 10?

(you know....those wars that Barry told us would have ended 18 months after he took over)

Steve </div></div>

Guessing about $150 billion each year, not including the accruing interest due from past years' costs going on the national credit card (and outside the budget).

O didn't say he'd wind down Afghanistan, he said he'd escalate it (and has). He didn't say he'd end combat operations in Iraq prior to the agreed upon withdrawal date that W negotiated, which he honored to the day.

pooltchr
04-04-2011, 04:09 PM
I don't really care, but if you go back to his campaign, he made some very different comments.
Much like how he was going to close Gitmo.

Steve

LWW
04-05-2011, 02:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First is the single largest year-over-year reduction in the annual deficit.
</div></div>

Which year from which?

Sack </div></div>

FY '09 to FY '10.

While LWW tries to fool people (or maybe other people fooled him?) that the Bush administration's '09 deficit was tiny, the CBO said it was $1.2 trillion prior to anything O did, once putting the war costs into the budget instead of pretending they were unforeseen 'emergency' expenditures is accounted for. </div></div>

Nice deception.

I've never said the 2009 deficit was "SMALL" ... what I've said is that it is wholly dishonest for the left to lay the blame solely on Bush when the congress sets the budget, that it's entirely hypocritical for Obama to say that he "INHERITED" a deficit that he not only voted for but also petitioned to make larger.

I've also said that the nutty 25% will believe whatever comes from dear leader without being bothered by pesky things like reality.