majority of Americans want Obama's deficit reduction plan

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

What is the CBO's analysis on Obama's plan? What? There isn't one they can even look at? Then how can the R's compromise?

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

What else would you expect from a compromise with Democrats, actual savings instead of smoke and mirrors?

Obama is the President.....We know that bugs the hell out of you Viking...the president doesnt initiate plans in congress...he only signs or vetos them. This is all on the congress critters and they are playing russian roulette with our country. Kudos to Obama for trying to negotiate a compromise, but crafting legislation is NOT his job. The Dems have a plan that give Reps most everything they want, but they are too pigheaded to agree.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year . So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

And if you are going to lie, then don't post the link for crying out loud! :bash

It isn't $1 Billion PER year. In fact they said the total in their analysis would be $851 billion, just short of the $1 trillion he is shooting for.

FROM YOUR LINK!! ........

Over the course of a decade, CBO estimates the plan would reduce deficits by $851 billion. Those are big numbers. But they're less than Boehner's $1 trillion in promised cuts,


$851 billion over 10 years is NOT $1 billion per year as you say! No wonder our economy is like it is with Liberal math like that!!!

archer wrote: Obama is the President.....We know that bugs the hell out of you Viking...the president doesnt initiate plans in congress...he only signs or vetos them. This is all on the congress critters and they are playing russian roulette with our country. Kudos to Obama for trying to negotiate a compromise, but crafting legislation is NOT his job. The Dens have a plan that give Reps most everything they want, bit they are too pigheaded to agree.

But wait! You keep blaming Bush for all the spending when the Dems controlled BOTH houses the last two years under him. Which way is it?

The Republicans have a plan that give the Dems most everything they want, bit they are too pigheaded to agree. The new republican plan and the Dems plan are almost identical only the Dems plan has made up savings that have been proven. And NEITHER have tax increases. How is it that Obama might agree with one but not the several the R's have offered up that are almost the exact same. Is he going to give in on tax cuts just because the Dems drew it up? It is all about who he can give credit for it to. This has never been about the American people.

Great...the Dens had pushed for 4 trillion over 10 years...
I'm sure 851billion is better.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the CBO just released the economic analysis of the Boehner plan, and it reduces the deficit at best by $1 billion per year. So much for the $1 trillion cut in spending.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... t-year.php

What else would you expect from a compromise with Democrats, actual savings instead of smoke and mirrors?

It isn't $1 billion per year. STDS is lying. The CBO said it will be a total savings of $851 billion over 10 years.

Please show where I ever blamed Bush for the spending. I _blamed him for two wars....congress agreed to fund them. No funding would have been necessary if he hadn't gone off half cocked to try and rule the world. And Bush himself took credit for the damaging tax cuts.

archer wrote: Great...the Dens had pushed for 4 trillion over 10 years...
I'm sure 851billion is better.

Hey clueless! The R's started that high but Obama won't go for it and again a lie. $4 trillion is not a number they have used. It is $2.7 trillion and the R's total with the second round will be close to $3 trillion. And the D's plan has $1.2 trillion of savings over the next 10 years for pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which is already figured that we will. THAT is smoke and mirrors.

archer wrote: Please show where I ever blamed Bush for the spending. I _blamed him for two wars....congress agreed to fund them. No funding would have been necessary if he hadn't gone off half cocked to try and rule the world.

So this isn't Bush's recession? And this economy and the huge spending for the last 4 years while the Dems controlled all of congress isn't his fault? Glad you are finally coming around! :thumbsup:

And again, do you have any clue what goes on in the world? The Dems also voted for both wars, and funding several times and now under Obama, adding troops. And you still JUST say Bush! :bash