majority of Americans want Obama's deficit reduction plan

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Pretty sure the American People would like to see this adminstration Go Away.

Fire 4 Obama, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi, and put millions back to work! THAT is math that works!

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

It's already been pointed out to you that "$1 billion per year" figure is flat out wrong, so why do you still use it?

According to the CBO, Boehner's current plan would save $850 billion over 10 years (using a March 2011 baseline) while Reid's would save $2.2 trillion. There are currently links to both CBO reports on their front page...

http://www.cbo.gov/

The plans are very similar in what they plan to cut, except Reid's plan calls to end all spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That amounts to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion savings. For some unknown reason, Boehner's plan seems to assume we will still be spending that money for the next 10 years, even if the wars end. Don't know why he'd do that. Any new wars planned, or are we still there in 10 years? :VeryScared:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

You have to love regressive tactics so transparently false that questioning the integrity of the poster is the only reasonable avenue left. Taking a single year in one instance and citing 10 years in the other. Come now Dog, do you have naught but falsified demagoguery to contribute here? Is there so little integrity in you that you can't at least remain consistent and use the 10 year figure in both instances?

Measured against March 2011 government expenditure levels, the Boehner proposal, as currently written, would reduce the deficit by $850 billion during the next decade, according to the CBO. Measured against January 2011 government spending levels, the bill would reduce budget deficits by roughly $1.1 trillion during that same time period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 10357.html

The estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found the measure drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) would cut about $840 billion from agency budgets through 2021, roughly the same as the proposal by Boehner (R-Ohio). But Reid also claims significant savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CBO found that those savings account for more than $1.1 trillion, making up more than half of Reid’s debt-reduction package.

Republicans have dismissed the inclusion of war savings as a budget gimmick, arguing that the nation has no intention of spending that money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

And for grins and giggles, we'll include something from your own link as well -

The Congressional Budget Office released its estimate Wednesday morning. The analysis also said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would save $840 billion in non-war spending by government agencies.

The analysis said it would reduce the government's interest payments by $375 billion over a decade. The bulk of the reductions come from projected savings of $1 trillion from the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess that Boehner should have included the phantom savings from money that isn't planned on being spent as well to artificially inflate his figures for the CBO; but then I guess integrity is more important than budget skullduggery for the Speaker. Seems that both plans are about on par with regards to savings over 10 years that would be cut from agency budgets. $850 Billion for Boehner versus $840 Billion for Reid - which is indeed an additional savings of $1 Billion dollars a year over the Reid plan when comparing savings from the same non-war spending over the same 10 year period.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So while the Republican plan would reduce the deficit by less than $1 billion per year, the Democrats plan would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. Looks like the Democrats are the only party serious about reducing the deficit.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18558502

It's already been pointed out to you that "$1 billion per year" figure is flat out wrong, so why do you still use it?

According to the CBO, Boehner's current plan would save $850 billion over 10 years (using a March 2011 baseline) while Reid's would save $2.2 trillion. There are currently links to both CBO reports on their front page...

http://www.cbo.gov/

The plans are very similar in what they plan to cut, except Reid's plan calls to end all spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That amounts to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion savings. For some unknown reason, Boehner's plan seems to assume we will still be spending that money for the next 10 years, even if the wars end. Don't know why he'd do that. Any new wars planned, or are we still there in 10 years? :VeryScared:

At least you posted the correct numbers and can read unlike STDS. Well, that isn't a cut if we are already planning on not being there. Those numbers aren't included in the projections so by Reid cutting them and claiming saving $1.2 trillion is smoke and mirrors. And then he thres in saving $400 billion more in interest by cutting out the non existent spending that is not included. That is $1.6 trillion of savings that we dont' plan on spending anyway. It's like saying we are cutting $4 trillion on WW3 that we aren't planning on but we will still count it!

Amazing how different numbers appear from various sources.

I quoted directly from the CBO reports, but even there you can give different numbers depending on which baseline you use (I used March to make an apples-to-apples comparision). But what's a couple of hundred billion here or there?

When the #'s are that high and there really is no $$ involved a 0 here or there makes little difference.

A question for the Odumbo faithful. Where were these reduction plans prior to the 2010 Republican rise? The Democratic controlled federal gubmint were happy as pigs in s..t spending at a record pace. Damn those TEA Party folks for ending the party.

pineinthegrass wrote: Amazing how different numbers appear from various sources.

I quoted directly from the CBO reports, but even there you can give different numbers depending on which baseline you use (I used March to make an apples-to-apples comparision). But what's a couple of hundred billion here or there?

Let's look at CBO projections then.....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc100 ... .5.1.shtml

Under Obama they project the Debt Held by the Public as a Percentage of GDP will rise from 40% the last year under Bush to 82% in 10 years. Is he still going to blame that on Bush 10 years down the road?

And look at the CBO's Estimate of the President's Budget the second group of numbers down. Never below $650 billion for 10 years. And this was last year before he added a lot to it! 2010 was actually higher and 2011 is predicted to be $1.5 trillion not $970 billion. So add a WHOLE lot to what Obama has done! So over $10 trillion in 10 years when it was only $10 trillion in the previous 230+ years of Presidents.



Actual
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 2010-2014 Total 2010-2019
Total Deficit -459 -1,845 -1,379 -970 -658 -672 -749 -785 -895 -949 -1,023 -1,189 -4,429 -9,270

HEARTLESS wrote: A question for the Odumbo faithful. Where were these reduction plans prior to the 2010 Republican rise? The Democratic controlled federal gubmint were happy as pigs in s..t spending at a record pace. Damn those TEA Party folks for ending the party.

If they would have voted for reduction when they had 100% total control for 2 years then they wouldn't have been able to spend trillions on pet projects. An open checkbook with our tax dollars for 2 years and trillions of dollars wasted. Now when it comes time to pay for it they want the R's and taxpayers to sacrifice.

The reductions should fall square on the people who are consuming this wasteful spending, and that's not gonna be the top 2% of productive earners.

Government employee's should get drastic cuts, followed by the welfare state and entitlement state. Our only hope of working back this massive spending and debt will be to convert government workers to private sector workers, and turn welfare mommies into working mommies, thereby increasing the number of taxpayers and at the same time decreasing the number of people sucking on the government teat.

Taxing the most productive earners would have drastic negative effects on the economy, and as has been pointed out, those earners already pay a disproportionate amount of their earnings in taxes. Any new taxes will destroy job opportunities.

The answer to the debt equation is not to increase revenue, we do not have a revenue problem, we have a government run amok problem- the problem is spending!