Hey Republicans - where are the spending cuts?

[billvon 3,132]

So where are they? All their latest proposal says:

==============
On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending. These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.
==============

But Bowles says that makes no sense:

===============
While I'm flattered the Speaker would call something "the Bowles plan," the approach outlined in the letter Speaker Boehner sent to the President does not represent the Simpson-Bowles plan, nor is it the Bowles plan.
===============

So where, specifically, would they cut?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So where, specifically, would they cut?

They'll tell you sometime before 2025.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

So where, specifically, would they cut?

They'll tell you sometime before 2025.

I suppose you have to pass the bill to find out?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airdvr 210]

The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.
House Speaker John Boehner called it a "credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[BIGUN 1,505]

Quote

$200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.

Helluva plan..

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

It's two years of deficits gone. Out of ten.

Big deal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So where, specifically, would they cut?

They'll tell you sometime before 2025.

I suppose you have to pass the bill to find out?

Well, you never know what will actually end up in a bill until there's no further possibility of amendment - which is when it has passed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including
>$800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health
>savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts.

Excellent! Now let's see where the cuts are. The GOP plan calls out cuts under the Bowles recommendation; Bowles has already said they aren't valid cuts any more.

So where are the cuts? Specifically. Not just "other spending cuts" - specific numbers. Military cut X billion targeted at areas A, B and C, Medicare cut Y billion by increasing out of pocket expenses, increasing the eligibility age etc.

>House Speaker John Boehner called it a "credible plan that deserves serious
>consideration by the White House."

This coming from the guy whose statements have a 52% "mostly false" "false" and "pants on fire" rating from Politifact.

But I wpn't hold that against him if he's got a good plan. Let's see the details.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Excellent! Now let's see where the cuts are. The GOP plan calls out cuts under the Bowles recommendation; Bowles has already said they aren't valid cuts any more.

Well of course it's not now that the Republicans want to use it.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Issues/Simpson-Bowles/

Now don't paint me in with the republicans totally. They want tpo stop the tax hikes. I say go for it. But I'm not willing to give the drunken sailors in DC another 2 trillion to blow on our behalf. I'd rather drive over the cliff than to just raise taxes with no spending cuts.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,132]

> I'd rather drive over the cliff than to just raise taxes with no spending cuts.

Agreed. We need to do both.

[lawrocket 3]

It's time to give O'Rourke's Circumcision Principle some serious consideration.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>It's time to give O'Rourke's Circumcision Principle some serious consideration.

Everyone can agree to that!

Except Republicans. Can't cut the salaries of our hardworking, heroic soldiers.

And the Democrats. Can't cut the kindly old lady's insulin.

And the tea partyers. The government better keep its hands off their medicare!

And the military buffs. Can't cut the absolutely 100% critical next generation fighter or we'll all be speaking Chinese.

And the highways. Gotta maintain them; bridges won't corrode 10% slower just because you say so.

And the charities. Can't end charitable deductions. All charities would die.

And the unions, and the CEO's, and the miners, and the EMT's, and the firemen, and the single moms, and the job creators, and the unemployed, and the families, and the disabled vets. But as long as you give all the above groups exceptions, then we can all agree to cut everything by 10%.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

>It's time to give O'Rourke's Circumcision Principle some serious consideration.

Everyone can agree to that!

Except Republicans. Can't cut the salaries of our hardworking, heroic soldiers.

And the Democrats. Can't cut the kindly old lady's insulin.

And the tea partyers. The government better keep its hands off their medicare!

And the military buffs. Can't cut the absolutely 100% critical next generation fighter or we'll all be speaking Chinese.

And the highways. Gotta maintain them; bridges won't corrode 10% slower just because you say so.

And the charities. Can't end charitable deductions. All charities would die.

And the unions, and the CEO's, and the miners, and the EMT's, and the firemen, and the single moms, and the job creators, and the unemployed, and the families, and the disabled vets. But as long as you give all the above groups exceptions, then we can all agree to cut everything by 10%.

I'd be happy with 10% fewer political ads.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'd be happy with 10% fewer political ads.

do you see that many in the Chicago area? Not exactly a battleground...in SF I see very very few ads on local channels. Only because I get national channels from satellite do I get the national advertizing.

[airdvr 210]

I live in Ohio. We need a The Political Ad channel for those who are so inclined.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

Quote

I live in Ohio. We need a The Political Ad channel for those who are so inclined.

You know, that entire problem could be solved by the people of Ohio if they wanted; just move your primary later in the season. Sure, you'd lose your "special snowflake" status, but if you wanted to lose the ads, it's all doable. New Hampshire, same deal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I live in Ohio. We need a The Political Ad channel for those who are so inclined.

You know, that entire problem could be solved by the people of Ohio if they wanted; just move your primary later in the season. Sure, you'd lose your "special snowflake" status, but if you wanted to lose the ads, it's all doable. New Hampshire, same deal.

wouldn't change the problems during the Fall.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I live in Ohio. We need a The Political Ad channel for those who are so inclined.

You know, that entire problem could be solved by the people of Ohio if they wanted; just move your primary later in the season. Sure, you'd lose your "special snowflake" status, but if you wanted to lose the ads, it's all doable. New Hampshire, same deal.

wouldn't change the problems during the Fall.

I think it would. By lessening they hype up front more dollars would be spent elsewhere earlier which means those other states would rise in value. It certainly wouldn't hurt.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

I'd be happy with 10% fewer political ads.

do you see that many in the Chicago area? Not exactly a battleground...in SF I see very very few ads on local channels. Only because I get national channels from satellite do I get the national advertizing.

WE had lots for congressional races.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Facts are, whatever happens, middle class will get screwed. Rich will get off and poor will get more. The rich don't pay any taxes any way no matter any percentage of tax rate, so why does it matter to the GOP what the tax percent rate is? Dumb that GOP is taking the hardline, when money is in Cayman. Dumb Dumb Dumb. They are going to lose again and Obama is setting them up to lose lose lose.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including
>$800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health
>savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts.

Excellent! Now let's see where the cuts are. The GOP plan calls out cuts under the Bowles recommendation; Bowles has already said they aren't valid cuts any more.

So where are the cuts? Specifically. Not just "other spending cuts" - specific numbers. Military cut X billion targeted at areas A, B and C, Medicare cut Y billion by increasing out of pocket expenses, increasing the eligibility age etc.

>House Speaker John Boehner called it a "credible plan that deserves serious
>consideration by the White House."

This coming from the guy whose statements have a 52% "mostly false" "false" and "pants on fire" rating from Politifact.

But I wpn't hold that against him if he's got a good plan. Let's see the details.

This is why the best option is to go over the cliff. Immediate spending cuts across the board which are already outlined. Any other plan will just push the spending cuts further out into the 10 year budget outline, which of course will never come to pass. Yes, the cliff will hurt. There is no other way.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[grimmie 186]

What would happen if we cut all of the foreign aid we dole out each year by 25%?
Would the world collapse?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

What would happen if we cut all of the foreign aid we dole out each year by 25%?
Would the world collapse?

No, but it would have practically zero effect on the deficit.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

wouldn't change the problems during the Fall.

I think it would. By lessening they hype up front more dollars would be spent elsewhere earlier which means those other states would rise in value. It certainly wouldn't hurt.

So long as Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania are nearly 50/50 propositions and offer a healthy number of EC votes, they're going to be saturation bombed from before the conventions until Nov. It doesn't matter when they have their primary, that's a different bucket of money - money raised during the primary process.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd be happy with 10% fewer political ads.

do you see that many in the Chicago area? Not exactly a battleground...in SF I see very very few ads on local channels. Only because I get national channels from satellite do I get the national advertizing.

WE had lots for congressional races.

We may see an change in this. California recently altered the primary process such that the top two vote getters go on the November ballot. I don't find this change to be a good one, but the net affect in a Democratic stronghold like this (or a GOP one elsewhere), is that now the November race may actually be a competitive one. In the case of the race that pushed out senile Pete Starks from Congress, it was a very mean one...it proved that he needed to be retired.