The percentage difference makes it clear its not about spending.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
The space between where the Republicans are and where the Democrats are in spending makes it celar its not about spending as Bohner claims.

This is about pretending to shut down the government to appease the Tea Party. After the weekend they will "broker a compromise" that will reopen the government.

Its all planed ahead of time amungst the leaders.
 
Sorry, but there is a difference between $61 billion and $33 billion - the former figure is nearly twice that of the latter. And I'm one who believes Boehner should take the $33 billion offer. As I've stated, it's a miracle that Democrats are willing to cut a dime of spending...
 
King of Gods said:
Sorry, but there is a difference between $61 billion and $33 billion - the former figure is nearly twice that of the latter. And I'm one who believes Boehner should take the $33 billion offer. As I've stated, it's a miracle that Democrats are willing to cut a dime of spending...
Click to expand...

Percentage of overall budget it is SMALL, VERY SMALL....

Maybe Bohner should, if he were serious about spending cuts, but he is not... Bohner is serious about being perceved as tough by the TEA party.
 
King of Gods said:
Sorry, but there is a difference between $61 billion and $33 billion - the former figure is nearly twice that of the latter. And I'm one who believes Boehner should take the $33 billion offer. As I've stated, it's a miracle that Democrats are willing to cut a dime of spending...
Click to expand...

The thing is, I am not even sure EITHER are actual spending cuts year over year. I think they are simply cutting the amount of the increase in many areas. I could be wrong, but that is usually the 'logic' we see out of DC.

DC Schmuck 1: 'you want to increase spending for 'x' by 8%?'

DC Schmuck 2: 'yes, 8%'

DC Schmuck 1: 'How about we increase it by 3% given the state of the economy'

DC Schmuck 2: ' why are you cutting spending'

DC Schmuck 1: 'because we are fiscally responsible'

Tax payer: 'aren't you idiots still outspending your revenue by $1.7 TRILLION this year?'

DC Schmuck 1 & 2 : 'Um Derp derp derp'
 
Jarod said:
Percentage of overall budget it is SMALL, VERY SMALL....

Maybe Bohner should, if he were serious about spending cuts, but he is not... Bohner is serious about being perceved as tough by the TEA party.
Click to expand...

So you support Ryans plan? Good to hear.
 
This whole spending cuts thing is equivalent to saying that I'm cutting my 200 a day Big Mac habit by taking the sesame seeds off and calling it a serious diet.
 
Superfreak said:
The thing is, I am not even sure EITHER are actual spending cuts year over year. I think they are simply cutting the amount of the increase in many areas. I could be wrong, but that is usually the 'logic' we see out of DC.

DC Schmuck 1: 'you want to increase spending for 'x' by 8%?'

DC Schmuck 2: 'yes, 8%'

DC Schmuck 1: 'How about we increase it by 3% given the state of the economy'

DC Schmuck 2: ' why are you cutting spending'

DC Schmuck 1: 'because we are fiscally responsible'

Tax payer: 'aren't you idiots still outspending your revenue by $1.7 TRILLION this year?'

DC Schmuck 1 & 2 : 'Um Derp derp derp'
Click to expand...


They're talking about actual cuts. The Democrat's initial proposal was a spending freeze, meaning no increase from last year, and they have moved to $33 billion.
 
Actually, the most current reporting has Senate Democrats up to $38 billion, which would be insane for Boehner to reject if he was at $40 previously. The sticking point appears to be policy riders which defund Planned Parenthood and prevent women in D.C. from obtaining abortion services and defund the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Clearly, the number isn't the issue at this point.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, the most current reporting has Senate Democrats up to $38 billion, which would be insane for Boehner to reject if he was at $40 previously. The sticking point appears to be policy riders which defund Planned Parenthood and prevent women in D.C. from obtaining abortion services and defund the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Clearly, the number isn't the issue at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part. It seems the numbers have come close enough together to get both sides to agree on them. It is the defunding of certain projects that appears to be the stickler.
 
leaningright said:
I agree for the most part. It seems the numbers have come close enough together to get both sides to agree on them. It is the defunding of certain projects that appears to be the stickler.
Click to expand...


The only issue now seems to be Planned Parenthood. Agreement has been reached on the other policy riders, at least according to Harry Reid.

I suppose the oddest thing about the Planned Parenthood funding being the sticking point is all the hoopla about the Tea Party not giving a shit about social issues and being concerned only with budget issues. If that were actually the case, there'd be a deal now. I said all along that it was nonsense. This confirms it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
They're talking about actual cuts. The Democrat's initial proposal was a spending freeze, meaning no increase from last year, and they have moved to $33 billion.
Click to expand...

If you cannot find less than 1% in 1.7 Trillion in overspending then you are inept and should lose your job, your children should be barred from the workplace so they don't infect the rest of us with stupidity, your wife should be taken away just in case you might have more children to spread the stupidity virus which you obviously carry, and your schools should be closed (whatever school you might have ever even visited) as they are spreading the infection to later generations.
 
Damocles said:
If you cannot find less than 1% in 1.7 Trillion in overspending then you are inept and should lose your job, your children should be barred from the workplace so they don't infect the rest of us with stupidity, your wife should be taken away just in case you might have more children to spread the stupidity virus which you obviously carry, and your schools should be closed (whatever school you might have ever even visited) as they are spreading the infection to later generations.
Click to expand...


You'd have a point if all spending were on the table, but it isn't. The cuts are limited to non-defense discretionary spending per the terms of the House Republicans.
 
King of Gods said:
Sorry, but there is a difference between $61 billion and $33 billion - the former figure is nearly twice that of the latter. And I'm one who believes Boehner should take the $33 billion offer. As I've stated, it's a miracle that Democrats are willing to cut a dime of spending...
Click to expand...

i agree...if the dems are willing to cut 33 billion....get it done with
 
NigelTufnel said:
You'd have a point if all spending were on the table, but it isn't. The cuts are limited to non-defense discretionary spending per the terms of the House Republicans.
Click to expand...

so....we are engaged in 3 military "actions" and you want to whine that we can't cut the budget (the way you want) because we are cutting non-defense discretionary spending....

give me a break nigel....
 
Yurt said:
so....we are engaged in 3 military "actions" and you want to whine that we can't cut the budget (the way you want) because we are cutting non-defense discretionary spending....

give me a break nigel....
Click to expand...


I'm seriously starting to question your mental faculties. The point, dim-witted one, is that while it may be easy to shave $60 billion off of a $3+ trillion budget (all spending), it's a whole lot more difficult to shave $60 billion off of a $540 billion budget, particularly when the fiscal year is already half over. It's more like cutting in excess of 20% of the budget.

Limiting the cuts to non-defense discretionary spending seriously limits the amount you can feasibly cut as you're only talking about 15% of the total budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top