bushwacked Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 A new budget estimate released Wednesday shows that the spending bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner would produce less than 1 percent of the $38 billion in promised savings by the end of this budget year. The Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that compared with current spending rates the spending bill due for a House vote Thursday would cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 VICTORY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 O ....................................O...................................... O .................................................................O John Boehner's tear drops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 Well, to be fair, if Obama would have let the pubs slash Planned Parenthood, we would already have a surplus and the Chinese would owe us money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'll stand by this... They got together and accomplished nothing... NOTHING!!!! I hold them all equally accoutnable and worthless, what say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'll stand by this... They got together and accomplished nothing... NOTHING!!!! I hold them all equally accoutnable and worthless, what say you? I simply don't understand how $38 billion became less than 1% of that. I know much of the cuts were clawing back excess money in various accounts and I'm fine with that but I still don't get what has happened here. Is it because defense has gone up or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'll stand by this... They got together and accomplished nothing... NOTHING!!!! I hold them all equally accoutnable and worthless, what say you? +1, I think they all suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'll stand by this... They got together and accomplished nothing... NOTHING!!!! I hold them all equally accoutnable and worthless, what say you? +1, I think they all suck. Should we add your names to those who will be voting 3rd party in upcoming elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Should we add your names to those who will be voting 3rd party in upcoming elections? I might just vote for Hezbollah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I might just vote for Hezbollah Might as well for all the fooking good it's doing. sumbeach! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) Well, to be fair, if Obama would have let the pubs slash Planned Parenthood, we would already have a surplus and the Chinese would owe us money. That's good, though. We want to save the sacred Baby-Killing Cow. Isn't that ironic? You're saving Planned Parenthood but not the babies themselves. Edited April 14, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Should we add your names to those who will be voting 3rd party in upcoming elections? Who is running? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 That's good, though. We want to save the sacred Baby-Killing Cow. Isn't that ironic? You're saving Planned Parenthood but not the babies themselves. If you want to save babies, just go to Planned Parenthood and poke holes in the condoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 What's laughable is how they are all so pleased with each other over this. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 That's good, though. We want to save the sacred Baby-Killing Cow. Isn't that ironic? You're saving Planned Parenthood but not the babies themselves. Well hell...we should just shut down Planned Parenthood and invoke a 2 child limit across the board. Wait..that would be communistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Well hell...we should just shut down Planned Parenthood and invoke a 2 child limit across the board. Wait..that would be communistic. That would be tough when you're as good looking as I am. Ladies can't keep their hands off me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 What's laughable is how they are all so pleased with each other over this. What a joke. That is the exact thing that I don't get. I mean what the hell happened here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I'm with Ursa on this, what the hell happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Well, I just read the article, and now it makes a little more sense. To a fair degree, the lack of immediate budget-cutting punch is because the budget year is more than half over and that cuts in new spending authority typically are slow to register on deficit tallies. And Republicans promise that when fully implemented and repeated year after year, the cuts in the measure would reduce the deficit by $315 billion over the coming decade.Still, the analysis is an early lesson about Washington budgeting for junior lawmakers elected last year on promises to swiftly attack the deficit. At issue is a concept in budgeting that is often difficult to grasp. Appropriations bills like the pending measure give agencies the authority to spend taxpayers’ money. But such authority typically takes months or years to actually leave the federal Treasury, so cuts made in the middle of the budget year often have little immediate impact...... The CBO study confirms that the measure trims $38 billion in new spending authority relative to current levels, but many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don’t have an immediate deficit impact... It's better than what Nancy and company left us with, but I'm still not happy with it. I guess the GOP rolled over to prevent a shut down. Hopefully with more time and without a looming shutdown they can make more significant cuts to the budget of 2012 and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I'm with Ursa on this, what the hell happened? Both sides are so dirty right now there is no telling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Well, I just read the article, and now it makes a little more sense. It's better than what Nancy and company left us with, but I'm still not happy with it. I guess the GOP rolled over to prevent a shut down. Hopefully with more time and without a looming shutdown they can make more significant cuts to the budget of 2012 and beyond. If you think the brinkmanship involved with last week and the shutdown deadline was dramatic, wait until the debt ceiling deadline arrives. Failure to agree before then will send America into default on it's debt and the consequences could well make the Great Recession pale into insignificance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) If you think the brinkmanship involved with last week and the shutdown deadline was dramatic, wait until the debt ceiling deadline arrives. Failure to agree before then will send America into default on it's debt and the consequences could well make the Great Recession pale into insignificance. History will look back at this time period something like: Clinton expanded help for the poor that was costly, Bush Jr expanded help for the rich and CEOs that was costly + some wars, Obama couldn't do anything thus American sunk. Edited April 15, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (CBS News) Before we get too far in the new debate on spending, just a word about last week's news - the so called "historic compromise" that prevented a government shutdown and cut an astounding $38 billion from this year's budget. Whether or not you thought the cuts came in the right programs, that's a big deal. Thirty-eight billion dollars is a lot of money. Or is it? Well, thanks to the Congressional Budget Office and some great reporting by the Washington Post, it turns out the government won't be cutting $38 billion in one year after all. No, the real cuts will be more like $352 million! You heard me right, $352 million, NOT $38 billion. The rest? Mostly smoke, mirrors and accounting gimmicks. Example: When projects like the Capitol Visitor Center came in under budget - it was supposed to cost $621 million and an actually cost less than $600 - auditors called the unspent, left over money a "spending cut." The Washington Post found that in 98 cases where the government had allotted money to federal agencies that was never spent, in each case it was called a "spending cut." On big-ticket items like aircraft carriers whose full cost won't come due for five or six years, the entire cost was deducted as a "cut" in this year's budget. We bemoan the fact that government can't break its spending habits, can't do what it needs to do, but what I find more disappointing - is appalling too strong a word? - is that try as they might, neither side can seem to find a way to tell the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Example: When projects like the Capitol Visitor Center came in under budget - it was supposed to cost $621 million and an actually cost less than $600 So a savings of over $620,999,400? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 sons a bishes and cucksockers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.