[Wckcvhsg]

Just heard this on the radio.

The vaunted Budget Agreement, the largest spending cut in history will actually reduce spending this year by 350 million dollars, less than 1% of the 38 billion claimed to have been cut.

But by 2016, all the actual cuts, about 20 billion dollars will have been realized.

Because a lot of those cuts, was money that was never going to be spent.

[Buyemae]

Just heard this on the radio.

The vaunted Budget Agreement, the largest spending cut in history will actually reduce spending this year by 350 million dollars, less than 1% of the 38 billion claimed to have been cut.

But by 2016, all the actual cuts, about 20 billion dollars will have been realized.

Because a lot of those cuts, was money that was never going to be spent.

Right, I keep reading about these "outlayers" as they're called.

I'm trying to understand them better and how they work or don't work but I don't quite get it.

[LeslieMoran]

Just heard this on the radio.

The vaunted Budget Agreement, the largest spending cut in history will actually reduce spending this year by 350 million dollars, less than 1% of the 38 billion claimed to have been cut.

But by 2016, all the actual cuts, about 20 billion dollars will have been realized.

Because a lot of those cuts, was money that was never going to be spent.

That's correct it was another smoke-screen. For instance--6 billion was basically left over money from the Census in 2010--and was added in as a cut. It was simply left over money.

Even 38 billion was not even a drop of water in a 10 gallon bucket--when we are talking about a 3.7 trillion dollar budget--which is already showing a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit--(this year alone.)

You have to admire people like Michelle Bachman--who wanted a lot more in cuts and voted against this 38 billion non-sense. Unfortunately she and the other freshman republican congressmen didn't get their way.

[nryFBa9i]

Did the Dems actually just punk the GOP? Can it be? I didn't think they were that smart lol.

[Percocetti]

Did the Dems actually just punk the GOP? Can it be? I didn't think they were that smart lol.

If they did they punked the American people, I know your all for borrowing and spending and that is punking the American people. It's liberals like you that think there is no end to the money supply.

[nryFBa9i]

If they did they punked the American people, I know your all for borrowing and spending and that is punking the American people. It's liberals like you that think there is no end to the money supply.

Not true!!! The progressives in the house just introduced the people's budget which balances by 2014. Only difference is old people aren't thrown at the mercy of the insurance companies and rich people have to actually pay their fair share so the middle class can stay strong and the country can prosper.

A 'people's budget' that invests in jobs - CNN.com

You are pivoting to deficit reduction before there are enough jobs to support it and you will kill the recovery. The best way to reduce the deficit is to continue investing in jobs. Of course, this sucks for Republicans who need things to be bad under Obama so naturally they must be for deficit reduction now and be against anything that Obama might want to pass (even war!! Have you ever seen republicans against war?).

[Percocetti]

Not true!!! The progressives in the house just introduced the people's budget which balances by 2014. Only difference is old people aren't thrown at the mercy of the insurance companies and rich people have to actually pay their fair share so the middle class can stay strong and the country can prosper.

A 'people's budget' that invests in jobs - CNN.com

You are pivoting to deficit reduction before there are enough jobs to support it and you will kill the recovery. The best way to reduce the deficit is to continue investing in jobs. Of course, this sucks for Republicans who need things to be bad under Obama so naturally they must be for deficit reduction now and be against anything that Obama might want to pass (even war!! Have you ever seen republicans against war?).

Quote from your site:
"The budget makes targeted public investments, but cuts overall spending by $1.7 trillion over a decade."

Lets do some math, our deficit this yr is 1.6 trillion and it is projected to run a deficit of 1.5 trillion every yr over the next ten yrs that would equal an additional 15 trillion to the existing 14.5 trillion plus add in this yrs 1.6 trillion for a grand total of 32.1 trillion national debt at the end of 10 yrs. Less Obama's cuts in the deficit of 1.7 trillion over ten yrs leaves a national debt of 30.4 trillion. This is your answer to prosperity? And you call this the "peoples budget" talk about cool aid drinkers.

Your statement that Obama is going to have a balanced budget by 2014, I don't want to call it a lie but come on, no I will call it a lie. A flat out lie.

Oh and one more thing, "public investments" equals more "stimulus" you must think the American people are really stupid.

[Dyslermergerb]

Not true!!! The progressives in the house just introduced the people's budget which balances by 2014. Only difference is old people aren't thrown at the mercy of the insurance companies and rich people have to actually pay their fair share so the middle class can stay strong and the country can prosper.

A 'people's budget' that invests in jobs - CNN.com

You are pivoting to deficit reduction before there are enough jobs to support it and you will kill the recovery. The best way to reduce the deficit is to continue investing in jobs. Of course, this sucks for Republicans who need things to be bad under Obama so naturally they must be for deficit reduction now and be against anything that Obama might want to pass (even war!! Have you ever seen republicans against war?).

That may be the dumbest thing brought up yet. Not surprising Danny would love it.

[xtrslots]

Anything coming from the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be thrown straight in the trash bin. All they'll bring is economic collapse.

[Wckcvhsg]

What both parties have agreed on with this is that we need large tax hikes.

Here's the budget, 3.7 trillion, the parties wrangle for a while, threaten to close down the government, and finally come up with cuts of 1% of the budget, except that the real cuts are 1% of that 1%.

Still think you are going to cut your way out of the deficit?

Oh, there are huge amounts that could be cut, that the Democrats would go along with, but that involves pork barrel spending in GOP districts, and the GOP talks that talk, but there's no way they are going to walk that walk.
And all the Democrats have done is to actually stick to their principles.

So if all that wailing and gnashing of teeth and predictions of Armageddon only produced cuts of 0.01%, what do you expect the 2012 budget to end looking like?

Consider this, election campaign 2012 is starting to ramp up, that means the GOP is dependent on corporate donations, from the companies that profit from government spending, it's one thing to blather on about TeaParty wacko ideas when your not asking people for money and votes, but when you are going to fund raisers, and shaking hands with with guys handing you envelopes with the money to finance your campaign, and telling you how vital ethanol is to the nation, are you really going to pick that moment to denounce ethanol as a waste that must be cut entirely from the budget.

When you are campaigning for the Florida vote and it's key electoral college votes, are you going to denounce Medicare and Social Security as an unsustainable giveaway Ponzi scheme?

We have seen the best opportunity to make serious cuts come and go, and the result is a 0.01% cut in actual spending.
And that's rounding up....

[Cofeeman]

Budget numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. Money that was budgeted but not spent, and then cut, is still a cut, because unspent money always gets spent eventually by agencies. They don't give it back. Plus, these cuts permanently reduce some baselines.

Most importantly, the 2011 budget that was approved is $40 billion under the President's request and constitutes only a 2% increase over FY2010. So while it may seem like there weren't any real spending cuts, spending was controlled pretty effectively this year.

Of course, 2012 will see much bigger cuts. The President's own plan involves $70 billion in domestic discretionary cuts in the first year alone, so Democrats have no right to complain if the Republicans pass that much.

[Wckcvhsg]

Budget numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. Money that was budgeted but not spent, and then cut, is still a cut, because unspent money always gets spent eventually by agencies. They don't give it back. Plus, these cuts permanently reduce some baselines.

Most importantly, the 2011 budget that was approved is $40 billion under the President's request and constitutes only a 2% increase over FY2010. So while it may seem like there weren't any real spending cuts, spending was controlled pretty effectively this year.

Of course, 2012 will see much bigger cuts. The President's own plan involves $70 billion in domestic discretionary cuts in the first year alone, so Democrats have no right to complain if the Republicans pass that much.

The point is they have reduced spending this year by 0.009 %.
Next Year, there is Paul Ryan calling for an end to everything, Obama calling for a few little cuts, and a congress that wants to get re-elected.
The appetite for cutting spending is muted when that spending is in your state or your district. Sure, Boehner can say if we have to cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs "So be it".
But when it comes time to actually cut, what gets cut are deals, and nothing passes without Democratic votes in the Senate.

Bush is gone but it's the same GOP, Tough talk, Pussy Walk.

[beatrisio]

The point is they have reduced spending this year by 0.009 %.
Next Year, there is Paul Ryan calling for an end to everything, Obama calling for a few little cuts, and a congress that wants to get re-elected.
The appetite for cutting spending is muted when that spending is in your state or your district. Sure, Boehner can say if we have to cut a couple of hundred thousand jobs "So be it".
But when it comes time to actually cut, what gets cut are deals, and nothing passes without Democratic votes in the Senate.

Bush is gone but it's the same GOP, Tough talk, Pussy Walk.

The GOP is certainly part of the problem, but the current system isn't allowing the sort of honest talk that's needed about the budget. Nothing can honestly be done about deficit reduction until we address Social Security, Medicare, defense and our excessively low tax rates. Nothing will change until then.

Ben

[refsherne]

Right, I keep reading about these "outlayers" as they're called.

I'm trying to understand them better and how they work or don't work but I don't quite get it.

Here's a pretty good explanation.

[MormefWrarebe]

The problem is a lot worse than it looks and there's plenty of blame to go around. Add the antics of American people to all of these corrupt, apathetic politicians in Washington and you've got a recipe for the eventual collapse of our entire economy...sooner rather than later.

The American people are all for raising taxes...as long as it's someone elses taxes that gets raised. Making cuts in social programs...great, just don't cut mine. No one wants their own ox gored, the politicians in Washington know it and they act accordingly and we end up with a joke of a budget cut while these yahoos in Washington do victory laps.

Same song and dance with economic disaster as the ultimate prize. The worse part...is that we all know what's coming.

[refsherne]

The GOP is certainly part of the problem, but the current system isn't allowing the sort of honest talk that's needed about the budget. Nothing can honestly be done about deficit reduction until we address Social Security, Medicare, defense and our excessively low tax rates. Nothing will change until then.

Ben

I was about to write "exactly spot on," but then I decided I don't agree that "the system isn't allowing...honest talk" (see my post, above) and also don't agree that Social Security is a significant part of our long-term deficit problem.

Everything else in your post, however, is exactly spot on.

[beatrisio]

I was about to write "exactly spot on," but then I decided I don't agree that "the system isn't allowing...honest talk" (see my post, above) and also don't agree that Social Security is a significant part of our long-term deficit problem.

Everything else in your post, however, is exactly spot on.

Thanks. Well, by system- I meant the two party system, just to be clear.

Ben

[fil_nurser]

... meanwhile, US spent 15 millions last year, and 14 millions in 2011 on "supporting democracy" in Belarus; 4 billion on Iraqi "democratic development"; 800 000 for "democracy" in Honduras; 2 billion -- for Egyptian "democratic movement", etc., etc., etc...

[Percocetti]

Thanks. Well, by system- I meant the two party system, just to be clear.

Ben

The system was broken, that is for sure, but I do believe the people are now waking up. The T Party movement has been on fire and has brought a lot of attention to the deficit and national debt problem. Ryan busted out and challenged Obama to cuts, not ever seen before on this scale. We've seen Europe close up with their debt problems and we did not like what we saw. So IMO the mood is changing, and I think as long as the T Party continues to drive home the message as they did during the mid-terms and if they do that again in 2012 there will be major changes. Are the people ready, that remains to be seen.

[Percocetti]

... meanwhile, US spent 15 millions last year, and 14 millions in 2011 on "supporting democracy" in Belarus; 4 billion on Iraqi "democratic development"; 800 000 for "democracy" in Honduras; 2 billion -- for Egyptian "democratic movement", etc., etc., etc...

Good point, and that has to come to a dead stop. This is insame.