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

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

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

Moonbat math.

We had an actual surplus in 2000, though it included social security which is on budget.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

We had an actual surplus in 2000, though it included social security which is on budget.

You can hold on to all the fake moonbat totems you want, the only one you are BSing is yourself.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

We had an actual surplus in 2000, though it included social security which is on budget.

You can't say we had a surplus and use SS as part of that surplus. Seems rather, well, BS'y to me.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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

Is that a serious question?

Mind numbingly scary if it is.

[mlyonsd]

Does everyone fathom this?

The leader of our country refuses to reduce our spending anywhere even closely remote to what we take in?

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

How do you expect an elected official to keep his job if he ever has to be the bad guy?

Both sides are guilty. The unfortunate thing is we have a president that is facing a long term crisis and he doesn't lead.

i don't necessarily disagree but i wonder when i hear that o'bama doesn't lead what is it that he is supposed to do to be a leader?

can he individually buttonhole the tea partiers and hard-right conservative reps in the house and persuade them to compromise?

when their own leaders cannot?

what actions would constitute "leadership" with regard to the fiscal cliff negotiations? what should he do?

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Does everyone fathom this?

The leader of our country refuses to reduce our spending anywhere even closely remote to what we take in?

the sequestration cuts don't begin to approach achieving balanced budgets and they are big enough to throw the economy into the shitter again, imagine cuts many times deeper and the effect they would have...

it's simply politically impossible to make deep cuts in middle and lower class benefits and services...

hell, look at the conniptions the left are having over changing the cola calculations for soc security...

and the conniptions of the right over cutting taxes for everybody but the "rich" guys...

i am beginning to think i'm glad i'm not invested in the stock market, i think it's going to tank when we roll over the edge of the fiscal cliff...

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Is that a serious question?

Mind numbingly scary if it is.

Spell it out for me.

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

You liberals need to realize that. But you won't....you think money grows on trees.

No, they simply don't understand the consequences of just printing enough fiat money to cover these expenses. Most so-called conservatives don't either.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by go bowe

i don't necessarily disagree but i wonder when i hear that o'bama doesn't lead what is it that he is supposed to do to be a leader?

can he individually buttonhole the tea partiers and hard-right conservative reps in the house and persuade them to compromise?

when their own leaders cannot?

what actions would constitute "leadership" with regard to the fiscal cliff negotiations? what should he do?

He is "The Man" he needs to put forth a plan and sell it like he has sold himself for the last 6 years. Bush sold a bunch of dems on a gazillion dollar war, I think Obama could sway some r's over a few trillion dollars.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

"Everyone" I can get behind. Not "the rich", not "those that make more than me" and not solely tax increases. However, Amno, you are in the minority within the current liberal party of extremism.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

He is "The Man" he needs to put forth a plan and sell it like he has sold himself for the last 6 years. Bush sold a bunch of dems on a gazillion dollar war, I think Obama could sway some r's over a few trillion dollars.

Again, why? What is the purpose of raising the taxes solely on "The rich" and not making realistic spending cuts?

Do you believe this will balance our budget?

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

No, they simply don't understand the consequences of just printing enough fiat money to cover these expenses. Most so-called conservatives don't either.

Money growing on trees = priniting meaningless paper money w/ zero value.

[Direckshun]

I have yet to have the math in the thread title explained.

It sure wasn't explained in the OP.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I have yet to have the math in the thread title explained.

It sure wasn't explained in the OP.

Feel free to correct the op if you think it's wrong.