GOP/Tea Party just added $900 Billion to deficit! Here is how

[bucs90]

I dont think many people on the right, which I'm a part of, realize what we've just done by forcing Obama to see it "our" way and extend these tax cuts.

MSNBC's hosts have said it best. We've just added another $900 Billion to the deficit. "We", the taxpayer, just added 900B to it.

At first, I didn't quite understand how "We" added 900 billion to the deficit, when "we" didn't spend it, we simply made Obama say the gov't wouldn't take 900 billion from us. It's the gov't that may, or may not, add that 900 billion to the deficit depending on how they act in the future.

But, then MSNBC and the left's logic struck me, and enlightened me.


Lets say I am a private, citizen worker. And I earn $100,000 a year.

However, I am $500,000 in debt.

While I earn $100,000 a year, and am in debt $500,000, I also spend $200,000 a year by running up credit cards and borrowing money from my family and neighbors.

I am basically -$100,000 a year running.

I was set to get a $50,000 raise from my boss before the economy tanked.

Now, I'm not getting that raise, he said I'll have to make do with what I'm already getting.

So, I stormed home and vented to my wife. I said to her "My damn boss just added another $50-100,000 a year to my debt!!!! He's so selfish!!!"

And it made sense to me then. I'm not the one causing my future debt. My boss is, by not paying me enough to balance the budget I'm personally using.

So, hence, the left can saw "we" the taxpayers are causing a $900 billion addition to the debt, because, the gov't is going to spend itself crazy regardless of how much we send it in money, so if we stop sending that money to them, as they run up debt, then we caused the debt by not sending the gov't enough to cover the debt it is creating.

Get it now?

 

[waltky]

Cut the fat...

Discretionary Spending Cuts Could Net $1.8 Trillion in Deficit Savings, CBO Says
Monday, March 14, 2011 – Cuts of 15 percent over 10 years to the Defense and non-Defense discretionary budgets could yield nearly $1.8 trillion in savings, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In a report titled “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,” CBO said that cutting both Defense and non-Defense discretionary spending by one percent per year over the next decade would result in a $1.79 trillion savings. Cutting each budget by one percent per year from current levels would amount to a 15 percent total reduction in discretionary spending. The report, which lists more than 100 options for deficit reduction said that if Congress reduced the Defense Department’s budget to 2007 levels, taxpayers would save $862 billion. “Reduce defense appropriations by 1 percent annually from the 2011 level, thereby decreasing outlays by an estimated $862 billion (or 15 percent) over the next 10 years,” the report recommended.

“Under that alternative, DoD’s appropriations would return to their 2007 funding level—in nominal terms—by 2021,” it added. CBO explained that the DoD budget has grown – excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – by nearly 75 percent over the past 10 years. Reducing the Defense budget to 2007 levels would give the Defense Department more buying power in 2021 than they would have had if the budget had grown along with the economy. “Funding for DoD’s regular activities (excluding appropriations for overseas contingency operations) has increased by approximately 75 percent over the past 10 years, the study explained. “If regular defense appropriations had grown at the rate of inflation since 2001 and continued to do so through 2021, budget authority in 2021 would total $465 billion, $200 billion less than the amount in the baseline.

“Even if those appropriations were reduced by 1 percent per year from the current level (as described in the third alternative), funding would still be $10 billion more in 2021 than it would have been if appropriations had grown with inflation since 2001,” it added. CBO also said that reducing non-defense spending would save taxpayers billions as well. Cutting non-defense discretionary spending by one percent each year for the next 10 years would save approximately $932 billion. “Reduce those resources by 1 percent each year from the 2011 level, thus decreasing outlays by about $932 billion (or 15 percent) over the same period,” CBO said.

CBO noted that making such cuts would be equivalent to eliminating the entire budgets for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture. “That reduction is roughly equivalent to the total discretionary resources projected under CBO’s baseline assumptions for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture.” Like the Defense budget, CBO noted that the reductions it recommends would still give the government more buying power than it would have had if the growth of government had been pegged to the growth of the economy. “Over the past 10 years, discretionary funding (other than for DoD) has increased by about 60 percent, or by more than 30 percent after adjusting for inflation. Thus, federal agencies would have more buying power than they had a decade ago,” CBO explained.

CBO said that these cuts to discretionary spending could probably be made without adverse effects on the economy, because they would increase the amount of capital available for more productive uses and decrease the amount of money available for government to waste or spend fraudulently. “One rationale for reducing discretionary spending is that it has been growing faster than inflation and the size of the economy, thereby diverting ever more resources from the private sector, restraining economic growth, and contributing to the increase in federal deficits and debt,” it added. “Furthermore, some observers believe that many programs spend money ineffectively and that there is little relationship between expenditures and results; thus, reductions could be made with little negative impact on individuals or on the economy.”

Source

 

[Polk]

Cut the fat...

Discretionary Spending Cuts Could Net $1.8 Trillion in Deficit Savings, CBO Says
Monday, March 14, 2011 – Cuts of 15 percent over 10 years to the Defense and non-Defense discretionary budgets could yield nearly $1.8 trillion in savings, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In a report titled “Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,” CBO said that cutting both Defense and non-Defense discretionary spending by one percent per year over the next decade would result in a $1.79 trillion savings. Cutting each budget by one percent per year from current levels would amount to a 15 percent total reduction in discretionary spending. The report, which lists more than 100 options for deficit reduction said that if Congress reduced the Defense Department’s budget to 2007 levels, taxpayers would save $862 billion. “Reduce defense appropriations by 1 percent annually from the 2011 level, thereby decreasing outlays by an estimated $862 billion (or 15 percent) over the next 10 years,” the report recommended.

“Under that alternative, DoD’s appropriations would return to their 2007 funding level—in nominal terms—by 2021,” it added. CBO explained that the DoD budget has grown – excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – by nearly 75 percent over the past 10 years. Reducing the Defense budget to 2007 levels would give the Defense Department more buying power in 2021 than they would have had if the budget had grown along with the economy. “Funding for DoD’s regular activities (excluding appropriations for overseas contingency operations) has increased by approximately 75 percent over the past 10 years, the study explained. “If regular defense appropriations had grown at the rate of inflation since 2001 and continued to do so through 2021, budget authority in 2021 would total $465 billion, $200 billion less than the amount in the baseline.

“Even if those appropriations were reduced by 1 percent per year from the current level (as described in the third alternative), funding would still be $10 billion more in 2021 than it would have been if appropriations had grown with inflation since 2001,” it added. CBO also said that reducing non-defense spending would save taxpayers billions as well. Cutting non-defense discretionary spending by one percent each year for the next 10 years would save approximately $932 billion. “Reduce those resources by 1 percent each year from the 2011 level, thus decreasing outlays by about $932 billion (or 15 percent) over the same period,” CBO said.

CBO noted that making such cuts would be equivalent to eliminating the entire budgets for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture. “That reduction is roughly equivalent to the total discretionary resources projected under CBO’s baseline assumptions for the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture.” Like the Defense budget, CBO noted that the reductions it recommends would still give the government more buying power than it would have had if the growth of government had been pegged to the growth of the economy. “Over the past 10 years, discretionary funding (other than for DoD) has increased by about 60 percent, or by more than 30 percent after adjusting for inflation. Thus, federal agencies would have more buying power than they had a decade ago,” CBO explained.

CBO said that these cuts to discretionary spending could probably be made without adverse effects on the economy, because they would increase the amount of capital available for more productive uses and decrease the amount of money available for government to waste or spend fraudulently. “One rationale for reducing discretionary spending is that it has been growing faster than inflation and the size of the economy, thereby diverting ever more resources from the private sector, restraining economic growth, and contributing to the increase in federal deficits and debt,” it added. “Furthermore, some observers believe that many programs spend money ineffectively and that there is little relationship between expenditures and results; thus, reductions could be made with little negative impact on individuals or on the economy.”

Source

So even with those cuts, you'll have managed to trim about 10% of the deficit.

 

[Polk]

Those saying we 'cut the fat' to balance the budget are either ignorant or lying. The reality is cuts on the scale needed to balance the budget would result in deep cuts in service. I'm sure some of you feel that's a positive thing, but if so, argue why that is, instead of pretending their isn't a real cost to real people.