Obama's proposed spending cuts won't even pay the interest on our debt

[mlyonsd]

The Cost of Spending: Can deficit-reduction plans make a dent?

By Bret Baier
Published December 19, 2012 FoxNews.com

The report from President Obama's highly touted deficit-reduction commission came out two years and 18 days ago.

On that brisk December morning, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad painted a dire picture if lawmakers didn't move quickly.

"If we fail to act now, our country could find itself in a circumstance in which we have to take draconian action, at the worst possible time in the middle of a crisis. I pray to God that we have the wisdom to act before that point," he said.

The two commission co-chairmen couldn't agree more. "This baby ain't going away," co-chairman Alan Simpson said.

But so far, Congress has not been able to pass a plan that achieves what their proposal would -- a $4 trillion deficit reduction within 10 years. And it's unclear if they ever will.

In the current talks over the looming fiscal crisis, the deal on the table is considerably smaller -- and yet President Obama said Wednesday that Republicans should be pleased with the spending cuts they'd be getting him to sign onto.

"Take the deal," he said. "You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package; that we will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it."
But clearly, they're not.

Last week, Republicans warned about "kicking the can down the road" and "doing all the gimmicks that have been done in the past."

Whether either party will kick that habit, though, remains to be seen. With the government spending roughly $10 billion a day, the cuts that are being proposed wouldn't even cover the interest on the debt.

Spending is not projected to go down. At best, the rate of growth in spending would slow.

"The word 'cut' is what government statisticians and budget officials call it -- but in fact it's just really a slowing of growth, and sometimes the growth is still quite high even after it's slowed down," said John Taylor, a Stanford University economist.

Arthur Brooks, with the American Enterprise Institute, explained: "They assume that if this year we spend 5 percent, next year we're gonna spend 8 percent, and the year after that we're gonna spend 10 percent. And they say 'well I'll tell you what, why don't we cut a percentage point off each one of those rates of growth?' ... Well, that's not a cut."

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh noted that "no family, no business, no philanthropy" would operate that way.

"I think there are some passages in Alice in Wonderland that must have dealt with this, because in Washington less of an increase is considered a cut, even though it's more money," he said.

So why not scrap that system altogether? Bayh said some have suggested doing that, and budgeting every year by starting from zero and saying "how much money do we have?"

"That's the way every business, every family, ever charitable foundation has to operate -- would be good if the federal government did that too," he said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2Fe3RyoDz

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

And you bought it. Not one dime of cuts were real. Not one dime. Sucker.

yeah, it's just like the mythical "clinton surplus".

Moonbat math.

[Direckshun]

What's the math to support the thread title, by the way?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What's the math to support the thread title, by the way?

Multiplication.

[KCWolfman]

I have yet to understand why so many are crying for increased taxes on the wealthy. To what benefit? To make you feel better about yourselves? To decrease the deficit (do you really think increasing the tax structure by 4 or 5 percent on 2 percent of the population will actually make a difference when we actually increase spending 8 percent each year - even if congress doesn't vote for increases? More importantly, when those taxes are increased do you believe the wealthy are actually going to be expanding and handing out raises?

To me it is a struggle of the liberals between really bad math skills vs. envy of those who have more - either way, it is stupid.

[A Salt Weapon]

I believe it is nothing more than envy on the part of liberals. Or they really are just ****ing stupid, on second thought that's probably what it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I believe it is nothing more than envy on the part of liberals. Or they really are just ****ing stupid, on second thought that's probably what it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

I just don't understand the desire to take money from other people when you know that the money will do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant and irrational spending.

Isn't this President who wants total control of the debt ceiling the same one who called President GWBush "UnAmerican" and "UnPatriotic" for raising the debt level so high? What the hell makes him American or Patriotic if he does the same damned thing twice as much in half the time?

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Obama signed a $1 trillion spending cut bill back in 2011 with no revenue increases, actually.

That's a $1 trillion to 0 ratio.

Since then, he's decimated the Republican party in elections and polls, so his leverage is a bit different now.

So he didn't have leverage when he was the POTUS and his party controlled the Senate while the GOP had the House. But now, he has leverage since he is the POTUS and his party controls the Senate while the GOP has the House.


Nice logic.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I believe it is nothing more than envy on the part of liberals. Or they really are just ****ing stupid, on second thought that's probably what it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

I would gladly take you on in a battle of wits.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I would gladly take you on in a battle of wits.

And you might win, unless it came down to firearm knowledge, plumbing, or propane.

But to think that obama is the solution to this country's problems is woefully naïve. To ascertain that somehow raising taxes and creating more entitlement programs is going to magically solve this nation's spending problem is ignorant.

I would gladly challenge you to a battle of marksmanship.
Posted via Mobile Device

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

And you might win, unless it came down to firearm knowledge, plumbing, or propane.

But to think that obama is the solution to this country's problems is woefully naïve. To ascertain that somehow raising taxes and creating more entitlement programs is going to magically solve this nation's spending problem is ignorant.

I would gladly challenge you to a battle of marksmanship.
Posted via Mobile Device

dude, I'm a pretty good shot

[A Salt Weapon]

Well it wouldn't make for much of a battle if it was a one-sided cake walk.
Posted via Mobile Device

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Obama signed a $1 trillion spending cut bill back in 2011 with no revenue increases, actually.

That's a $1 trillion to 0 ratio.

Since then, he's decimated the Republican party in elections and polls, so his leverage is a bit different now.

The federal budget has grown every year under Obama, and every president for that matter. Cutting spending means you spend less than the year before. Obama has not signed or even proposed a single dollar of spending cuts.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

The federal budget has grown every year under Obama, and every president for that matter. Cutting spending means you spend less than the year before. Obama has not signed or even proposed a single dollar of spending cuts.

He must be talking about that budget passed by the Senate in 2009, er I mean 2010, darn it I guess it was 2011, no not then either......2012?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

Constitution doesn't have one, so where would such a requirement come from.

And, just for the record, there was something like ONE year when the federal government had zero debt. Late in Andrew Jackson's administration, if memory serves. The federal government has always had debt otherwise (though not always deficits, obviously).

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

I have yet to understand why so many are crying for increased taxes on the wealthy. To what benefit? To make you feel better about yourselves? To decrease the deficit (do you really think increasing the tax structure by 4 or 5 percent on 2 percent of the population will actually make a difference when we actually increase spending 8 percent each year - even if congress doesn't vote for increases? More importantly, when those taxes are increased do you believe the wealthy are actually going to be expanding and handing out raises?

To me it is a struggle of the liberals between really bad math skills vs. envy of those who have more - either way, it is stupid.

Raising taxes on the wealthy is really a no brainer to help close the deficit, but so is getting better control over run-away spending which, I should note, includes military spending which in real dollars is higher than it was during the Cold War, amazing as that is. Frankly, the gap is so wide now we need a concerted effort and EVERYONE needs to feel pain to at least some degree.

I'd be ok with broadening the tax base also, of course. Again, EVERYONE needs to chip in on this. Balancing the budget with no spending cuts and solely on the backs of the "rich" (however you want to define that) isn't possible. Not even remotely.