PDA

View Full Version : How the House GOP promise to cut $100b became $32b



Roger Perry
02-03-2011, 05:51 PM
On Capitol Hill today, House Budget Committee staffers briefed reporters about Chairman Paul Ryan's plans for the nation's budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011.
The current continuing resolution -- the bill that funds the government -- runs out on March 4, 2011. That leaves seven more months for fiscal year 2011, which ends on Sept. 30, 2011.
In their "Pledge to America" unveiled during the 2010 midterms, Republicans promised that in their first year, they would cut $100 billion from the nation's budget.

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.
Due to the fact that the current continuing resolution, that was written by Democrats, runs out on March 4, they plan on pro-rating that $100 billion dollar number to $58 billion in non-security savings from the money President Obama asked for in the 2011 fiscal year budget. (In other words, the $58 billion in savings applies equals 7/12 of the fiscal year that they say the GOP is in charge of, and it doesn't include money for security/military needs.)
However, when taking a closer look at the budget numbers, the actual savings found in the GOP plan equals $32 billion.
The math
The Obama administration did not get its desired budget in the current continuing resolution that is funding the government through fiscal year 2011.
If the current continuing resolution is extended, the amount of money used to fund the government for fiscal year 2011 is $1.087 trillion. The House GOP proposed budget is for $1.055 trillion dollars. $1.087 minus $1.055 equals $32 billion.

Ryan has responded that the House GOP will find $74 billion in discretionary savings "relative to President Obama's budget request." But the problem with that is that Obama's request is not the actual budget.
The politics
Many conservative House Republicans have asked that the $100 billion dollars in savings promised in the "Pledge to America" happen in fiscal year 2011. The GOP Leadership essentially conceded today that that is unlikely to occur, given the fact that the GOP had no control over the budget for the first five months of fiscal year 2011.
GOP leadership aides are quick to point out that that budget will go to the floor under an open rule, in which members may have a chance to add amendments that would cut more.
The fact that the savings only amount to $32 billion -- and not $100 billion -- is going to surely upset many conservative Tea Party members.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/03/5982006-how-the-house-gop-promise-to-cut-100b-became-32b

What a surprise the GOP cannot make good on their campaign promises to cut $100 billion from the budget.:rolleyes:

starjack
02-03-2011, 06:08 PM
On Capitol Hill today, House Budget Committee staffers briefed reporters about Chairman Paul Ryan's plans for the nation's budget for the rest of fiscal year 2011.
The current continuing resolution -- the bill that funds the government -- runs out on March 4, 2011. That leaves seven more months for fiscal year 2011, which ends on Sept. 30, 2011.
In their "Pledge to America" unveiled during the 2010 midterms, Republicans promised that in their first year, they would cut $100 billion from the nation's budget.

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.
Due to the fact that the current continuing resolution, that was written by Democrats, runs out on March 4, they plan on pro-rating that $100 billion dollar number to $58 billion in non-security savings from the money President Obama asked for in the 2011 fiscal year budget. (In other words, the $58 billion in savings applies equals 7/12 of the fiscal year that they say the GOP is in charge of, and it doesn't include money for security/military needs.)
However, when taking a closer look at the budget numbers, the actual savings found in the GOP plan equals $32 billion.
The math
The Obama administration did not get its desired budget in the current continuing resolution that is funding the government through fiscal year 2011.
If the current continuing resolution is extended, the amount of money used to fund the government for fiscal year 2011 is $1.087 trillion. The House GOP proposed budget is for $1.055 trillion dollars. $1.087 minus $1.055 equals $32 billion.

Ryan has responded that the House GOP will find $74 billion in discretionary savings "relative to President Obama's budget request." But the problem with that is that Obama's request is not the actual budget.
The politics
Many conservative House Republicans have asked that the $100 billion dollars in savings promised in the "Pledge to America" happen in fiscal year 2011. The GOP Leadership essentially conceded today that that is unlikely to occur, given the fact that the GOP had no control over the budget for the first five months of fiscal year 2011.
GOP leadership aides are quick to point out that that budget will go to the floor under an open rule, in which members may have a chance to add amendments that would cut more.
The fact that the savings only amount to $32 billion -- and not $100 billion -- is going to surely upset many conservative Tea Party members.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/03/5982006-how-the-house-gop-promise-to-cut-100b-became-32b

What a surprise the GOP cannot make good on their campaign promises to cut $100 billion from the budget.:rolleyes:

You make laugh. With all your bs. You sit there and hammer the gop and the right about promises not kept. Just take a look at your boy and his admin. What promises have they kept. All they do is spend and spend at least the gop is trying. So what other artical or graph are you going to show us to try to make you feel good.

BonMallari
02-03-2011, 06:26 PM
32 Billion is a good start...did anyone really expect them to go in and slash and burn everything...of course not..they may have the majority in the House, but not the unanimous authority to do whatever they please..nor should they...

Roger Perry
02-03-2011, 06:29 PM
32 Billion is a good start...did anyone really expect them to go in and slash and burn everything...of course not..they may have the majority in the House, but not the unanimous authority to do whatever they please..nor should they...

Then they should not have promised $100 Billion if they could not deliver it. $32 billion is not even half of what they promised.

BonMallari
02-03-2011, 06:41 PM
You want to talk about broken promises..where do we start alphabetically or chronologically...a Republican majority House has gotten more done in less than 30 days than what a Dem House screwed up in two years..let compare scorecards in Nov 2012, better yet let the American public keep score, like they did in 2010

huntinman
02-03-2011, 06:58 PM
You want to talk about broken promises..where do we start alphabetically or chronologically...a Republican majority House has gotten more done in less than 30 days than what a Dem House screwed up in two years..let compare scorecards in Nov 2012, better yet let the American public keep score, like they did in 2010

Game...Set...Match

Roger Perry
02-03-2011, 07:09 PM
You want to talk about broken promises..where do we start alphabetically or chronologically...a Republican majority House has gotten more done in less than 30 days than what a Dem House screwed up in two years..let compare scorecards in Nov 2012, better yet let the American public keep score, like they did in 2010

$32 Billion does not make $100 Billion no matter how you count it.;-)

Steve Hester
02-03-2011, 07:15 PM
$32 Billion does not make $100 Billion no matter how you count it.;-)

But it's $32 billion more than your party cut.......:rolleyes:

starjack
02-03-2011, 07:22 PM
Bon- Huntinman-Steve . Is it not like banging your head against a wall!!!!!

huntinman
02-03-2011, 07:32 PM
Yep, but Marvin had it right when he called them the Washington Generals! The perpetual losers that play the Harlem Globetrotters every night. No matter how hard they try, they still get their butts kicked. Same with the libs here... Thats why they whine so much... It must be tough playing a losing hand every night.

M&K's Retrievers
02-03-2011, 07:37 PM
$32 Billion does not make $100 Billion no matter how you count it.;-)

Rp, your losing. Again.

Roger Perry
02-03-2011, 07:37 PM
But it's $32 billion more than your party cut.......:rolleyes:

Just where have they made the cuts?????????? Even they don't know.:rolleyes:

Where do the $32 billion in cuts come from?
The $32 billion in cuts will come from non-defense spending. House Republicans are quick to tell you that in the two years of the Obama administration, non-security spending has gone up 24%. When pressed for where exactly the cuts would be made, Republican Budget Committee staffers punted and said those decisions would be made by the House Appropriations Committee, the committee that ultimately allocates where the nation's treasure is spent.
When asked where might the Appropriations Committee look to find savings, House Republican Budget Committee staffers were quick to say that under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has seen its budget triple, and Republicans would "examine" that agency.

subroc
02-03-2011, 08:13 PM
How’s that closing of Guantanamo Bay working out?

BonMallari
02-03-2011, 08:22 PM
How’s that closing of Guantanamo Bay working out?

that was promise # 1 of day # 1:p:p

Steve Hester
02-03-2011, 08:40 PM
How is that 'hope and change" thing workin out?

cotts135
02-04-2011, 06:40 AM
32 Billion is a good start...did anyone really expect them to go in and slash and burn everything...of course not..they may have the majority in the House, but not the unanimous authority to do whatever they please..nor should they...

Not when the campaign promise is 100 billion. That's the problem with all politicians over promise and under deliver. The press has some culpability in this too. How about they concern themselves more about the issues and demand answers that are forthright and germaine to the conversation, instead of ingratiate themselves so they can write a book about them and make all sorts of money.

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 07:58 AM
Just where have they made the cuts?????????? Even they don't know.:rolleyes:

Where do the $32 billion in cuts come from?
The $32 billion in cuts will come from non-defense spending. House Republicans are quick to tell you that in the two years of the Obama administration, non-security spending has gone up 24%. When pressed for where exactly the cuts would be made, Republican Budget Committee staffers punted and said those decisions would be made by the House Appropriations Committee, the committee that ultimately allocates where the nation's treasure is spent.
When asked where might the Appropriations Committee look to find savings, House Republican Budget Committee staffers were quick to say that under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has seen its budget triple, and Republicans would "examine" that agency.
__________________

How did I know the righties here were going to jump right in and stand up for the GOP without even reading the whole article.:BIG:

Steve HesterHow is that 'hope and change" thing workin out? Today 01:22 AMBonMallariQuote:
Originally Posted by subroc http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=744070#post744070)
How’s that closing of Guantanamo Bay working out?

that was promise # 1 of day # 1Today 01:13 AMsubrocHow’s that closing of Guantanamo Bay working out?
Today 12:37 AMRoger PerryQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hester http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=744041#post744041)
But it's $32 billion more than your party cut.......

Today 12:37 AMM&K's RetrieversQuote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=744033#post744033)
$32 Billion does not make $100 Billion no matter how you count it.

Rp, your losing. Again. Today 12:32 AM
M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
M&K's Miss Jessie Girl
Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
Freeway JYD

Mike Whitworth

Marvin S
02-04-2011, 09:07 AM
Where do the $32 billion in cuts come from?
The $32 billion in cuts will come from non-defense spending. House Republicans are quick to tell you that in the two years of the Obama administration, non-security spending has gone up 24%. When pressed for where exactly the cuts would be made, Republican Budget Committee staffers punted and said those decisions would be made by the House Appropriations Committee, the committee that ultimately allocates where the nation's treasure is spent.
When asked where might the Appropriations Committee look to find savings, House Republican Budget Committee staffers were quick to say that under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has seen its budget triple, and Republicans would "examine" that agency.

At least they are talking about cutting :cool:. The recovery is fragile at best, the wrong message could slow things down & guess who would receive the blame???????

But us moderates will be watching them closely, future donations depend on their performance. I only made 1 donation this last cycle, to a centist D that I know personally. It won't happen again, during the campaign he veered so far left that I didn't recognize his stuff. I usually donate to several campaigns.

You have a nice day, Roger, your jokes are funny, your political views are pathetic :(.

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 09:36 AM
At least they are talking about cutting :cool:. The recovery is fragile at best, the wrong message could slow things down & guess who would receive the blame???????

But us moderates will be watching them closely, future donations depend on their performance. I only made 1 donation this last cycle, to a centist D that I know personally. It won't happen again, during the campaign he veered so far left that I didn't recognize his stuff. I usually donate to several campaigns.

You have a nice day, Roger, your jokes are funny, your political views are pathetic :(.

Just because my political views are not the views of the far right wingers here do not make my political views pathetic. Other than Obamacare, how many times have you or any other rightie here have seen me stick up for Obama???????????? There needed to be a health care reform years ago. The Republicans have not produced one thought on health care other than to repeal what has been suggested. The only thing Bush contributed to this Country was 2 wars, a tax cut that we could not afford during war time, a recession and taking us from a balanced budget to trillions in debt.

huntinman
02-04-2011, 09:42 AM
Just because my political views are not the views of the far right wingers here do not make my political views pathetic. Other than Obamacare, how many times have you or any other rightie here have seen me stick up for Obama???????????? There needed to be a health care reform years ago. The Republicans have not produced one thought on how health care other than to repeal what has been suggested. The only thing Bush contributed to this Country was 2 wars, a tax cut that we could not afford, a recession and trillions in deficit.

He kept your sorry arse from getting attacked again for 7 years. Which, by the way is his number one job. If he had a mindset like most libs, you might be on your knees facing Mecca 5 times a day before you know it. (once again...all your responses come back to President Bush)

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 09:56 AM
He kept your sorry arse from getting attacked again for 7 years. Which, by the way is his number one job. If he had a mindset like most libs, you might be on your knees facing mecca 5 times a day before you know it. (once again...all your response come back to President Bush)


If Bush would have heeded the warnings of the CIA we may not have been attacked once much less 8 months into his Presidency.



Bush told of hijack warning weeks before 9/11


President Bush was given an intelligence briefing, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States just weeks before the September 11 attacks, it emerged yesterday. Details of the August 6 briefing in 2001, which warned of terrorist preparations being made for hijackings on American soil, surfaced in testimony given by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to a commission of inquiry studying the September 11 attacks.

How many terrorists attacks that have killed 3,000 people in America since obama has taken over the Presidency and that covers 2 years, not just 8 months?

The righties here do a good enough job of bi***ing about everything Obama says or does so there is no need for me to join in on the bashing.

huntinman
02-04-2011, 10:07 AM
OK...I'm going to bang my head against the wall know. Remember Slick Willie?? He had Obama er Osama on a silver platter and didn't want him? Remember that Roger? We can play tit for tat on this all day... I think I would rather bang my head against the wall though... Makes more sense than anything coming out of your keyboard...

Roger Perry
02-04-2011, 10:11 AM
OK...I'm going to bang my head against the wall know. Remember Slick Willie?? He had Obama er Osama on a silver platter and didn't want him? Remember that Roger? We can play tit for tat on this all day... I think I would rather bang my head against the wall though... Makes more sense than anything coming out of your keyboard...

You are the one who made the statement that Bush has kept us safe from attacks for 7 years not me. And, Bin Laden was not in the U.S. to carry out the attacks on the twin towers which would have happened with or without Bin Laden.;-) Clinton's chance as you call it came in the fall of 2000 and he chose to try to capture Bin Laden alive, not kill him.

subroc
02-04-2011, 10:11 AM
not standing for republicans.

highlighting another broken promise, nothing more, nothing less.

BrianW
02-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Yep, you're right Roger, they've been in office a whole month now and have failed miserably. They broke their promise. Obviously there's no hope for this change. Throw the lying, hypocritical bums out.

Because the Dems plan to just freeze spending at current levels is evidently far & away superior to cutting anything, right?. And these were be the guys that cost us $787 billion in just one shot. :rolleyes: