GOP: "About that campaign promise to cut spending..."

[Ivytalk]

So there's weeping and wailing about the extent of the GOP budget cuts, huh? What would you rather have: a GOP Congress that actually achieves $60 billion in cuts, or a BHO and his Donk cohorts whose policy profligacy (and studious avoidance of any impoundment power) is already legendary after a mere two years?

I'm sure Jelly will have an interesting response.

I'm sure he won't. He's probably out interviewing for Robert Gibbs's job.

[CitadelGrad]

I'll take a snail's pace paying it off vs. adding to it. I'm not defending the already failed campaign promise, but at least the intent is there. Now whether they actually do it is another question entirely.

You mean like Clinton was doing?

Only after the GOP took over Congress in '94. Do you really think it was Clinton who led to charge on deficit reduction?

[CID1990]

Point of order- the article specifically says that the first year figure was rolled back because the fiscal year will be half gone before any new changes to the budget can take effect.

I would expect more aggressive goals out of the 2012 budget.

Well then that's just plain stupid of them to open their big **** mouths.

You should have seen Cantor duckin and dodgin on the Early Show today. Stephanopolus had him pinned against the wall on the projection (all he asked for was an estimate) and on healthcare.

Another shithead conk/warmonger/corporate whore and crook. But at least he aint a crying, blubbering mess of a pussy like Boenner. Anyone else worried about that dude? He need some Midol or something.

I love watching idiot lefties calling "gotcha" on Republicans exaggerating budget cuts.

There's an analogy here somewhere, but my hypocrisy detector is smoking heavily and has clouded everything.

[Skjellyfetti]

I love watching idiot lefties calling "gotcha" on Republicans exaggerating budget cuts.

There's an analogy here somewhere, but my hypocrisy detector is smoking heavily and has clouded everything.

Same as idiot Conks calling "gotcha" on Democrats for overspending. After they overspent 2000-2006 when they controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress.

[native]

So there's weeping and wailing about the extent of the GOP budget cuts, huh? What would you rather have: a GOP Congress that actually achieves $60 billion in cuts, or a BHO and his Donk cohorts whose policy profligacy (and studious avoidance of any impoundment power) is already legendary after a mere two years?

I'm sure Jelly will have an interesting response.

It might take a while. Too many vocabulary words.

[Skjellyfetti]

So there's weeping and wailing about the extent of the GOP budget cuts, huh? What would you rather have: a GOP Congress that actually achieves $60 billion in cuts, or a BHO and his Donk cohorts whose policy profligacy (and studious avoidance of any impoundment power) is already legendary after a mere two years?

They haven't cut $60 billion yet. They've just down graded their goal to $35-$60 billion. Obama's goal is $500 billion by 2013. So, since we're just looking at goals... his is better.

[Skjellyfetti]

I wonder what the status of this goal is?

Repealing President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul would add billions to government red ink and leave millions without coverage, Congress' nonpartisan budget referees said Thursday ahead of a politically charged vote in the House.

House Speaker John Boehner brushed off the Congressional Budget Office analysis as emboldened Republicans, now in the majority in the House, issued their own report arguing that Obama's coverage expansion would cost jobs and increase budget deficits.

But Democrats seized on the CBO analysis, calling it a game changer in the battle for public opinion.
In a letter to Boehner, budget office director Douglas Elmendorf estimated repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion from 2012 to 2021, the 10-year estimating period for budget projections. Moreover, Elmendorf said about 32 million more people would be uninsured in 2019 as a consequence.

But Boehner told reporters: "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit."
The budget experts are "entitled to their opinion," added Boehner, R-Ohio, saying that the analysts had to rely on information selectively supplied by Democrats who wrote the legislation. Not so, said the Democrats; adverse rulings by the budget office repeatedly forced them to go back and revise the bill as they were writing it.

The budget director's verdict gave Democrats a new counterattack against Republicans elected on a promise to cut government debt. Until now, the main Democratic argument has been that repealing the law would eliminate benefits people are already receiving, from seniors facing high drug costs, to young adults who can stay on their parents' coverage, to those in poor health who can now get insurance.

"We can't afford to increase the deficit by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, especially with the very first substantive vote of the 112th Congress," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the authors of the law.

"Republicans have to understand that health care isn't going to be repealed," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "They should get a new lease on life and talk about something else." Reid has said he'll block repeal in the Democratic-led Senate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110107/ap_ ... are_repeal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

They haven't cut $60 billion yet. They've just down graded their goal to $35-$60 billion. Obama's goal is $500 billion by 2013. So, since we're just looking at goals... his is better.

One large difference you keep overlooking... this goal hasn't been cast aside and pissed on yet like Obama's has.

[Ivytalk]

So there's weeping and wailing about the extent of the GOP budget cuts, huh? What would you rather have: a GOP Congress that actually achieves $60 billion in cuts, or a BHO and his Donk cohorts whose policy profligacy (and studious avoidance of any impoundment power) is already legendary after a mere two years?

They haven't cut $60 billion yet. They've just down graded their goal to $35-$60 billion. Obama's goal is $500 billion by 2013. So, since we're just looking at goals... his is better.

If you count as "better" blowing something lacking specifics out of your azz with no ability or intention of backing it up, I guess you're right.

[Skjellyfetti]

blowing something lacking specifics out of your azz with no ability or intention of backing it up, I guess you're right.

I'm confused. Are you talking about Obama or the House Republicans?

[89Hen]

Jelly, you might be best just ignoring this thread. You really have no ground on which to stand.

[Skjellyfetti]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

[AZGrizFan]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Yes. The Democratic controlled Congress that was elected in 2008.

[AZGrizFan]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Yes. The Democrat controlled congress that was elected in 2008.

[Skjellyfetti]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Yes. The Democratic controlled Congress that was elected in 2008.

They passed it. It was drawn up and submitted by George W. Bush.

[Wedgebuster]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Yes. The Democratic controlled Congress that was elected in 2008.

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Yes. The Democrat controlled congress that was elected in 2008.

Thinking we need to cut your post total in about half...

[89Hen]

Fiscal year 2009 federal budget? You know who submitted the 2009 budget, right?

Ahhh, showing true Dem colors... blame Bush.

STOP!

[Skjellyfetti]

Ahhh, showing true Dem colors... blame Bush.

STOP!

Well, this thread is about House Republicans backtracking on promises.... but, it devolved into arguing about Obama.

Typical Conks.... blame Obama.

STOP!

[AppMan]

Political Hotsheet October 18, 2010

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Even if they don't get to all the cuts as first mentioned it is a far cry better than the direction we've been going, including the Bush years

.

[Ivytalk]

blowing something lacking specifics out of your azz with no ability or intention of backing it up, I guess you're right.

I'm confused. Are you talking about Obama or the House Republicans?

Read it again, buckaroo: I was reacting to your statement that "[Obama's goal] is better." He has no more sense of macroeconomic numbers than the man in the moon.

[BDKJMU]

Republicans Lower Goal for Cuts to Budget
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

While House Republicans were never expected to succeed in enacting cuts of that scale, given opposition in the Senate from the Democratic majority and some Republicans, and from President Obama, a House vote would put potentially vulnerable Republican lawmakers on record supporting deep reductions of up to 30 percent in education, research, law enforcement, transportation and more.

Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

Yet “A Pledge to America,” the manifesto House Republicans published last September, included the promise, “We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone.”

Republican leaders have repeatedly invoked the number. On Tuesday the Web site for Representative John A. Boehner, the incoming House speaker, included a link to his national radio address on the Saturday before the midterm elections, in which he said, “We’re ready to cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving roughly $100 billion almost immediately.”

Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who will become chairman of the House Budget Committee, said in December that the goal was to cut “a good $100 billion.” At issue is so-called discretionary domestic spending, which is about one-sixth of the federal budget and does not include the more expensive and fast-growing entitlement programs like Medicare.

On Tuesday, aides to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner blamed Democrats’ failure to pass the regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011 for forcing Republicans to reduce their goal to perhaps $50 billion to $60 billion.

“House Republicans will continue to work to reduce spending for the final six months of this fiscal year — bringing nonsecurity discretionary spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels — yielding taxpayers significant savings and starting a new era of cost cutting in Washington,” said Conor Sweeney, communications director for Mr. Ryan.

Because Democrats did not pass appropriations bills last year, the government has been operating since October with appropriations continuing at the previous fiscal year’s levels. It will do so until March 4, five months into this fiscal year.

The current spending levels are lower than Mr. Obama had requested for nonmilitary programs; he proposed a freeze at 2010 levels but with increases for some favored programs. The Republicans’ campaign promise was based on their calculation they could cut $100 billion from Mr. Obama’s higher levels.

Yet when Republicans issued their pledge last fall, it was clear that Congress would resort to a stopgap spending measure for at least part of 2011 and that, assuming Republicans won a majority, they would not be able to start work until the new Congress convened this month.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said, “I think they woke up to the reality that this will have a direct negative impact on people’s lives.

“You know, it’s easy to talk about these things in the abstract. It’s another thing when you start taking away people’s college loans and Pell Grants or cutting early education programs.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/po ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Republicans had talked about cutting spending back to 08' levels. If that invloves cuts of 30% or more in these areas, then that tells you spending in those areas went up 30% or more in just 3 years and is completely out of control.

[BDKJMU]

Yes. The Democratic controlled Congress that was elected in 2008.

They passed it. It was drawn up and submitted by George W. Bush.

FY 09' started Oct 1, 10' when Bush was in office. But the non defense, non homeland security discretionary omnibus bill wasn't passed until Feb 09' under Obama and a donk almost supermajority congress. Oct 08'-Feb 09' those departments operated under continuing resolutions.

Discretionary non defense, non homeland security spending under Obama for FY FY 10' increased a whopping $24% over FY-08':
"...On December 16, 2009 President Obama signed a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill; $446.8 billion of that amount covered six of the seven remaining appropriations bill.

Compared to the fiscal year 2009 versions of the six bills, there was an average increase in spending of 12.5 percent. Measured against fiscal year 2008, the legislation provides a staggering 24.4 percent increase, with State-Foreign Operations up by 48.8 percent, Transportation and Housing rising 39.1 percent, and Commerce, Justice and Science increasing 24.3 percent....."
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watc ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

I wonder what the status of this goal is?

Repealing President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul would add billions to government red ink and leave millions without coverage, Congress' nonpartisan budget referees said Thursday ahead of a politically charged vote in the House.

House Speaker John Boehner brushed off the Congressional Budget Office analysis as emboldened Republicans, now in the majority in the House, issued their own report arguing that Obama's coverage expansion would cost jobs and increase budget deficits.

But Democrats seized on the CBO analysis, calling it a game changer in the battle for public opinion.
In a letter to Boehner, budget office director Douglas Elmendorf estimated repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion from 2012 to 2021, the 10-year estimating period for budget projections. Moreover, Elmendorf said about 32 million more people would be uninsured in 2019 as a consequence.

But Boehner told reporters: "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit."
The budget experts are "entitled to their opinion," added Boehner, R-Ohio, saying that the analysts had to rely on information selectively supplied by Democrats who wrote the legislation. Not so, said the Democrats; adverse rulings by the budget office repeatedly forced them to go back and revise the bill as they were writing it.

The budget director's verdict gave Democrats a new counterattack against Republicans elected on a promise to cut government debt. Until now, the main Democratic argument has been that repealing the law would eliminate benefits people are already receiving, from seniors facing high drug costs, to young adults who can stay on their parents' coverage, to those in poor health who can now get insurance.

"We can't afford to increase the deficit by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, especially with the very first substantive vote of the 112th Congress," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the authors of the law.

"Republicans have to understand that health care isn't going to be repealed," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "They should get a new lease on life and talk about something else." Reid has said he'll block repeal in the Democratic-led Senate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110107/ap_ ... are_repeal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBO can only go with what it is fed. Garbage in = garbage out. The CBO bases its #s in calculation on what it was told to calculate by the donks: massive tax increases and over a half trillion in cuts to medicare spending. If you actually belive thats going to happen and Obamacare will actually decrease the deficit, then you're a lot dumber than I think you are.

"Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said this afternoon that contrary to claims that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, it will actually increase the deficit by roughly $700 billion.

Ryan said this afternoon at the National Press Club that the only reason a Congressional Budget Office letter claims the national health care law will reduce the deficit--i.e. bring in more revenue through tax hikes and Medicare cuts than it spends on Obamacare--is because "the books have been severely cooked"--not by the CBO but by the Democrats who wrote the bill.

"CBO has to score what you put in front of them," Ryan explained. "And if you put a bill in front of them that ignores the discretionary cost of the $115 billion you need to spend to run this new Obamacare program, that double counts the Medicare savings, that double counts the CLASS Act revenue, that double counts the Social Security revenue, that does not count the "Doc Fix"--you add all that stuff up, net it out, we're talking about a $701 billion hole--deficit."

"So if you actually do real accounting, get away the smoke-and-mirrors, get away the budget gimmicks, this thing is a huge deficit-increaser. And so we're not interested in enshrining, and endorsing, and accepting all the budget gimmicks the Democrats used to cram this thing through [Congress]," Ryan continued. "Mark my words: this thing will not reduce the deficit. I am very confident in saying that. They have a piece of paper from CBO that they contorted to suggest that it does. But that's not reality."

[89Hen]

Ahhh, showing true Dem colors... blame Bush.

STOP!

Well, this thread is about House Republicans backtracking on promises.... but, it devolved into arguing about Obama.

Typical Conks.... blame Obama.

STOP!

Golly, looks like the first mention of Obama was by..... YOU!

[native]

Jelly, you might be best just ignoring this thread. You really have no ground on which to stand.

Never stopped him before...