U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:07 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,011,318 times
Reputation: 5449

Advertisements

That's 37 billion a year for the math challenged. What a twit.

Yesterday, we roasted Boehner over his proposed deficit-cutting plan after it was discovered that it cut about $250 billion less than had been promised. Now it is time to do the same to Harry Reid, after the CBO has just released its analysis of his so-called "plan", which has double the credibility, and dollar, hole: per the CBO the plan will only generate $2.2 trillion in savings, half a trillion short of the promised $2.7 trillion. But wait, it gets far, far more idiotic. Per the CBO "The caps on appropriations of new budget authority excluding war-related funding start at $1,045 billion in 2012 and reach $1,228 billion in 2021" - that's right: savings from not fighting future wars - a cool trillion. But why stop there - savings from not declaring war on Mars: $1 quadrillion; savings from not paradropping suitcases full of $1 billion dollar bills for every US citizen: $333 quadrillion, and so forth. But wait: there's more: "The legislation also would impose caps of $127 billion for 2012 and $450 billion over the 2013-2021 period on budget authority for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for similar activities." But wait, there' even more: "Savings in discretionary spending would amount to nearly $1.8 trillion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $41 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to $375 billion." Gotta love the circularity: less interest payments are part of the actual deficit cuts! So, here's the math: of the $2.2 trillion in "savings" strip away non-savings from non-authorized "wars" and you get... $750 billion... and take out the $375 billion in, no really, interest savings, and you get... $375 billion. OVER TEN YEARS! Is there a wonder why with idiotic leaders like this the true US rating is CCC at best?

CBO Finds Reid Plan Half A Trillion Short Of $2.7 Trillion Promised; Actual Cuts Are $375 Billion Over Ten Years | ZeroHedge
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:16 PM
 
6,896 posts, read 7,200,521 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
That's 37 billion a year for the math challenged. What a twit.

Yesterday, we roasted Boehner over his proposed deficit-cutting plan after it was discovered that it cut about $250 billion less than had been promised. Now it is time to do the same to Harry Reid, after the CBO has just released its analysis of his so-called "plan", which has double the credibility, and dollar, hole: per the CBO the plan will only generate $2.2 trillion in savings, half a trillion short of the promised $2.7 trillion. But wait, it gets far, far more idiotic. Per the CBO "The caps on appropriations of new budget authority excluding war-related funding start at $1,045 billion in 2012 and reach $1,228 billion in 2021" - that's right: savings from not fighting future wars - a cool trillion. But why stop there - savings from not declaring war on Mars: $1 quadrillion; savings from not paradropping suitcases full of $1 billion dollar bills for every US citizen: $333 quadrillion, and so forth. But wait: there's more: "The legislation also would impose caps of $127 billion for 2012 and $450 billion over the 2013-2021 period on budget authority for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for similar activities." But wait, there' even more: "Savings in discretionary spending would amount to nearly $1.8 trillion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $41 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to $375 billion." Gotta love the circularity: less interest payments are part of the actual deficit cuts! So, here's the math: of the $2.2 trillion in "savings" strip away non-savings from non-authorized "wars" and you get... $750 billion... and take out the $375 billion in, no really, interest savings, and you get... $375 billion. OVER TEN YEARS! Is there a wonder why with idiotic leaders like this the true US rating is CCC at best?

CBO Finds Reid Plan Half A Trillion Short Of $2.7 Trillion Promised; Actual Cuts Are $375 Billion Over Ten Years | ZeroHedge
Actually the 375billion is the interest tht would be saved on the 751 billion cut over 10 years.....so the total is over 100 billion...IF
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:21 PM
 
9,733 posts, read 9,185,133 times
Reputation: 6387
Reid is an idiot. No "plan" should be allow to use savings from wars that are going to end anyway. Next he will try to include savings from all the shuttle missons that won't occur now that the program has been cancelled.

Any cuts that don't happen THIS YEAR are smoke and mirrors. Congress cannot pass legislation to stifle the ability of FUTURE congresses from spending money.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:22 PM
 
29,984 posts, read 41,130,405 times
Reputation: 12811
$400 Billion/yr due in interest alone to service the debt...and growing. Obammunist Reid has a do-nothing plan. Anyone surprised?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,877 posts, read 31,651,829 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
That's 37 billion a year for the math challenged. What a twit.

Yesterday, we roasted Boehner over his proposed deficit-cutting plan after it was discovered that it cut about $250 billion less than had been promised. Now it is time to do the same to Harry Reid, after the CBO has just released its analysis of his so-called "plan", which has double the credibility, and dollar, hole: per the CBO the plan will only generate $2.2 trillion in savings, half a trillion short of the promised $2.7 trillion. But wait, it gets far, far more idiotic. Per the CBO "The caps on appropriations of new budget authority excluding war-related funding start at $1,045 billion in 2012 and reach $1,228 billion in 2021" - that's right: savings from not fighting future wars - a cool trillion. But why stop there - savings from not declaring war on Mars: $1 quadrillion; savings from not paradropping suitcases full of $1 billion dollar bills for every US citizen: $333 quadrillion, and so forth. But wait: there's more: "The legislation also would impose caps of $127 billion for 2012 and $450 billion over the 2013-2021 period on budget authority for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for similar activities." But wait, there' even more: "Savings in discretionary spending would amount to nearly $1.8 trillion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $41 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to $375 billion." Gotta love the circularity: less interest payments are part of the actual deficit cuts! So, here's the math: of the $2.2 trillion in "savings" strip away non-savings from non-authorized "wars" and you get... $750 billion... and take out the $375 billion in, no really, interest savings, and you get... $375 billion. OVER TEN YEARS! Is there a wonder why with idiotic leaders like this the true US rating is CCC at best?

CBO Finds Reid Plan Half A Trillion Short Of $2.7 Trillion Promised; Actual Cuts Are $375 Billion Over Ten Years | ZeroHedge
I am sure that the new method of doing things monetary by Congress in 10 year periods has snowed many people. Some look at those figures and say, "WoW, can he really save that much". Too many people aren't able to think of those large numbers in tenths so they think they really see something.

I think we need an amendment that forces Congress to stop making monetary laws with amounts over 10 years. Not one of them can guarantee that he will be there in 10 years so they shouldn't talk over 6 years and only 2 for Representatives. Naw, that wouldn't be as much fun or as easy as 10 years to figure out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,877 posts, read 31,651,829 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Reid is an idiot. No "plan" should be allow to use savings from wars that are going to end anyway. Next he will try to include savings from all the shuttle missons that won't occur now that the program has been cancelled.

Any cuts that don't happen THIS YEAR are smoke and mirrors. Congress cannot pass legislation to stifle the ability of FUTURE congresses from spending money.
Oh yeah, they can pass that kind of laws but the later ones can throw out those laws and pass new ones. It should be against the law for these people to talk in periods of 10 years though. And as you said reducing for the wars and shuttle missions may fool a lot of people but I hope not enough.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:26 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,011,318 times
Reputation: 5449
Well the NFL signed a ten year labor contract. Maybe De Smith called his buddy Obama and said hey this ten year stuff seems to work?? LOL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:27 PM
 
9,733 posts, read 9,185,133 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I am sure that the new method of doing things monetary by Congress in 10 year periods has snowed many people. Some look at those figures and say, "WoW, can he really save that much". Too many people aren't able to think of those large numbers in tenths so they think they really see something.

I think we need an amendment that forces Congress to stop making monetary laws with amounts over 10 years. Not one of them can guarantee that he will be there in 10 years so they shouldn't talk over 6 years and only 2 for Representatives. Naw, that wouldn't be as much fun or as easy as 10 years to figure out.

All cuts should be required to occur during the current congress. They cannot constrain future congresses.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:30 PM
 
9,733 posts, read 9,185,133 times
Reputation: 6387
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Oh yeah, they can pass that kind of laws but the later ones can throw out those laws and pass new ones. It should be against the law for these people to talk in periods of 10 years though. And as you said reducing for the wars and shuttle missions may fool a lot of people but I hope not enough.

Tomorrow Harry Reid will claim that his plan will now save $1 Trillion dollars THIS YEAR because he was PLANNING on invading Iran and Libya and that would have cost money. By NOT actually invading he has saved money.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2011, 12:30 PM
 
6,896 posts, read 7,200,521 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
$400 Billion/yr due in interest alone to service the debt...and growing. Obammunist Reid has a do-nothing plan. Anyone surprised?
Considering Boehners cuts was only 100 billion difference, the interest savings over 10 years could not have of been that much more,...so you would agree as well that Boehner put forth a do nothing plan as well
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top