House Republicans' cuts fall short of the House GOP's campaign pledge

[VaYank5150]

Either way, the proposed House Republicans' cuts fall short of the House GOP's campaign pledge to cut at least $100 billion in non-security federal spending "in the first year alone."

House GOP slashes billions, falls short of pledge – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Oh, and where the hell is that jobs bill they promised?

 

[VaYank5150]

Meanwhile, Tea Party darling Rand Paul says

"It's really not going to touch the problem," Paul said. "There's a disconnect between Republicans who want a balanced budget but aren't maybe yet brave enough to talk about the cuts to come."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rand-paul-republicans-arent-brave-tackle-deficit/story?id=12837636

Oh, and where the hell is that jobs bill the GOP promised?

 

[Oddball]

Since a significant portion of the fiscal year is past, what's the prorated number?

 

[VaYank5150]

Since a significant portion of the fiscal year is past, what's the prorated number?

Read the article, stupid.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Even 100Billion in cuts was a laugher. It should've been around 250 Billion or more a year. 32 billion is a joke. Why am I not surprised. If no one is willing to acknowledge our dire situation, we'll just crash sooner.

 

[VaYank5150]

Here, I will help you out. Here is the actual language from the GOP's own Pledge to America:

Cut government spending to pre-stimulus, prebailout levels saving at least $100 billion in the
first year alone

http://pledge.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/solutions/pledge-pocket-card.pdf

I guess what I am looking for is any use of the word "pro-rated". And if it is not in there, why do you try to use it to defend them?

 

[Oddball]

Since a significant portion of the fiscal year is past, what's the prorated number?

Read the article, stupid.

Why not just post it, dickweed?

 

[8537]

Here, I will help you out. Here is the actual language from the GOP's own Pledge to America:

Cut government spending to pre-stimulus, prebailout levels saving at least $100 billion in the
first year alone

http://pledge.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/solutions/pledge-pocket-card.pdf

I guess what I am looking for is any use of the word "pro-rated". And if it is not in there, why do you try to use it to defend them?

I especially like the tacit claim that cutting the budget by 100B would return us to 2008 levels, while at the same time claiming Obama and the Dems have wildly increased spending since he took office.

 

[VaYank5150]

Where'd Oddball go?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

1912 levels would be more in line with what the country needs. R's and D's can go rot in hell.

 

[VaYank5150]

1912 levels would be more in line with what the country needs. R's and D's can go rot in hell.

Really? US population in 1912 was about 93M. It is currently at 309M. How would that WORK exactly?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

1912 levels would be more in line with what the country needs. R's and D's can go rot in hell.

Really? US population in 1912 was about 93M. It is currently at 309M. How would that WORK exactly?

Your assumption necessitates the need for government. Mine doesn't. Reduce proportionately for starters, 3.5trillion down to 1.5 trillion in the short term, then adjust downward as more people realize that they don't need the federal nanny state to solve their problems.

 

[VaYank5150]

1912 levels would be more in line with what the country needs. R's and D's can go rot in hell.

Really? US population in 1912 was about 93M. It is currently at 309M. How would that WORK exactly?

Your assumption necessitates the need for government. Mine doesn't. Reduce proportionately for starters, 3.5trillion down to 1.5 trillion in the short term, then adjust downward as more people realize that they don't need the federal nanny state to solve their problems.

So, since the lauded GOP along with their Tea Party brethren could only find a meager $32B in savings, what specifically would you cut to eliminate $2T from the budget?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Really? US population in 1912 was about 93M. It is currently at 309M. How would that WORK exactly?

Your assumption necessitates the need for government. Mine doesn't. Reduce proportionately for starters, 3.5trillion down to 1.5 trillion in the short term, then adjust downward as more people realize that they don't need the federal nanny state to solve their problems.

So, since the lauded GOP along with their Tea Party brethren could only find a meager $32B in savings, what specifically would you cut to eliminate $2T from the budget?

Start with cuts of 250B a year on military and 250B a year on social programs. From there, make cuts within agencies of approx 250B. Draw this out over 7 years.

But again, we're speaking within a vacuum. No one is listening in DC.

 

[VaYank5150]

Your assumption necessitates the need for government. Mine doesn't. Reduce proportionately for starters, 3.5trillion down to 1.5 trillion in the short term, then adjust downward as more people realize that they don't need the federal nanny state to solve their problems.

So, since the lauded GOP along with their Tea Party brethren could only find a meager $32B in savings, what specifically would you cut to eliminate $2T from the budget?

Start with cuts of 250B a year on military and 250B a year on social programs. From there, make cuts within agencies of approx 250B. Draw this out over 7 years.

But again, we're speaking within a vacuum. No one is listening in DC.

Thanks. I see that like with the GOP and the Tea Party, SPECIFICITY is not in your vocabulary. ANY body can walk around waving their arms in the air raving about cutting spending. However, until you or the GOP or their extreme wing, the Tea Party folks actually have a PLAN on what actual programs they will cut, how much they will cut and how they will handle the fall out of those cuts, to coin a phrase, it's "just words"....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So, since the lauded GOP along with their Tea Party brethren could only find a meager $32B in savings, what specifically would you cut to eliminate $2T from the budget?

Start with cuts of 250B a year on military and 250B a year on social programs. From there, make cuts within agencies of approx 250B. Draw this out over 7 years.

But again, we're speaking within a vacuum. No one is listening in DC.

Thanks. I see that like with the GOP and the Tea Party, SPECIFICITY is not in your vocabulary. ANY body can walk around waving their arms in the air raving about cutting spending. However, until you or the GOP or their extreme wing, the Tea Party folks actually have a PLAN on what actual programs they will cut, how much they will cut and how they will handle the fall out of those cuts, to coin a phrase, it's "just words"....

Sorry, I don't hang my hat on the R or D. I remember a few months ago that I was agreeing with you on cutting military but have failed to see you offer any cuts in social programs. Why is that? As far as specificity, 250B is a tangible number. You are aware that depts contain agencies....aren't you? I did mention cutting 250B among the agencies. Again, that is a tangible number.


Nice dodge, VaYank, but I'm not biting nor buying.

 

[Yurt]

House Republican staffers briefed reporters Wednesday and argued that their $58 billion figure does in fact meet their $100 billion target because it represents the pro-rated amount for scaling back spending rates to 2008 pre-stimulus levels for the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. They maintain that because the Democrats did not enact a budget when they controlled the chamber last year Republicans are left to working off levels set by Democrats for the remainder of the year.

 

[FA_Q2]

I find this rather funny. Series of events:
Republicans spend like idiots and damage the country.

Voter get pissed off and vote for the democrats who run on "Change" and the other guy is another Bush.

Democrats complain about Bush spending way too much and policies while continuing those same policies and the SPEND MORE at the same time.

Voter AGAIN pissed off and vote republicans back in who are running on reducing spending.

Republicans start to deliver because they know if they do not they will never see the inside of congress again and then the Democrats complain that it is not fast enough WHILE THEY ARE STILL SPENDING EVEN MORE THAN BUSH.

I am TIRED of hearing the democrats complain about spending habits that they, themselves, are continuing and growing while the republicans are FINALLY getting the message. Let's just hope the message continues and we get this issue under control.