Nobody is proposing actual spending cuts

"When the history of the Great Debt Limit Debate is written, one of the key villains will be the definition of "cut." For everyone who lives outside the halls of Congress, "cut" means to reduce. But inside Congress, "cut" means to spend less than your baseline projection of future spending. Since spending always tends to rise by at least the growth of nominal GDP, which has averaged about 5.5% for the past 30 years, the baseline that everyone compares their budget proposals to tends to project increased spending of about 5-6% per year.

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... nding.html

The Republicans need to call it only a halt to spending increases. All of us have had to cut back since the Obama Recession, it is only fair for the Feds to hold on spending.

Why have the Lefties not joined this thread? Maybe because they know it is true and don't want to admit it. lol Our goverment continues to grow no matter who is President. It is like the blob, like the urban sprawl near Solterra, only much faster.

We have to cut because we don't have our own private taxpayers to fund our addiction like the a-holes we keep electing. I wish more people in Washington understood math.

And Boehner's plan is like expanding goverment by only 5.9 instead of 6%.

His "draconian" savings will add up to only a couple weeks less spending.

It's sad that after all the tax protests, and sweeping some of the politicians out and replacing them with "smaller government" minded people- all the efforts of the tea party- the real affect here is near zero.

At first they were talking about 6 trillion in 10 years savings for the American people- now they are talking what- 1 maybe 2 trillion over 10 years and we are spending 2 trillion a year more than the government takes in. I hate this 10 year crap- new administrations will come and go by then, new congress and senate will come and go by then. It means nothing.

We need to cut (not scale back increases) government by 2 trillion dollars a year if we are even going to start to pay back any of this massive debt.

We could elect a libertarian congress and a libertarian president and it would still take decades to scale back the size of government.

That's why I'm a little more than just pessimistic - we are screwed.

I guess it could have been even worse without cleaning out congress.

Forget the idea of paying down the debt. That's not the plan. It's clear as could be they are going to try inflate their way out of it instead. In fact, it's been pretty clear to me since around the time of the invasion of Iraq that the only way to pay for the wars without draconian taxations was going to be to invoke inflation, the debtors best friend.

AspenValley wrote: Forget the idea of paying down the debt. That's not the plan. It's clear as could be they are going to try inflate their way out of it instead. In fact, it's been pretty clear to me since around the time of the invasion of Iraq that the only way to pay for the wars without draconian taxations was going to be to invoke inflation, the debtors best friend.

Inflate our way out of debt? The big money is too smart for that and the Fed is now forced to sell securities tied to the inflation rate.

Oh wait, the Feds have been fudging the inflation rate for years. It is even worse in Argentina, a economist there published a report with his estimate of the inflation rate versus the official goverment rate and the poor man was sued for lies and trying to spread panic.

What does it matter if the Fed is forced to sell securities tied to the inflation rate if the "inflation rate" is an artifice anyway? Does anyone think the official inflation rate these days has anything to do with reality?

And lets get real..Republicans don't care about spending-This is not about spending..This is about dismantling government and people here who talk about the deficit are just like the morons that talked about how we had to fight terrorism in Iraq. They don't know whats going on-They've been fed a load of sh** and they believe it.