BTW, who was it that kept them from keeping their $100 billion promise? Oh yea the Democrat Senate.
It was not a net increase in spending of $3 billion but a shift earlier in time. The compromise with the Dems was almost entirely a shift in time of existing spend authorizations. Not only will there be $3 billion less later on (after the fiscal year ends in less than 6 months) but there will be:
"overall, CBO finds that the bill Congress passed in April will result in about $122 billion in aggregate spending cuts over 10 years -- and $183 billion in reduced budget authority. '[O]ne thing is clear: congressional Republicans were able to save American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in the long term,' Buck writes"
That's right. After the totals are considered, the GOP actually increased total spending. We would have saved 3 billion had the GOP just approved spending for the rest of the year at the levels the Dems left it. This is the same bill that they promised to cut 100 billion from.
Now, who wants to guess which federal agency got a net increase in spending?
BTW, who was it that kept them from keeping their $100 billion promise? Oh yea the Democrat Senate.
It was not a net increase in spending of $3 billion but a shift earlier in time. The compromise with the Dems was almost entirely a shift in time of existing spend authorizations. Not only will there be $3 billion less later on (after the fiscal year ends in less than 6 months) but there will be:
"overall, CBO finds that the bill Congress passed in April will result in about $122 billion in aggregate spending cuts over 10 years -- and $183 billion in reduced budget authority. '[O]ne thing is clear: congressional Republicans were able to save American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in the long term,' Buck writes"
The Senate Dems kept them from keeping their 100 billion dollar promise? How so? It was the GOP that reduced their numbers done from 100 billion to 39 billion. Or did you forget that?
It was a shift earlier in time! You know what that sounds like to Willy? It sounds like spending more on defense then you would have otherwise.
"The net effect of such changes to mandatory programs over the 2012-2021 period is close to zero."
Of course, while spending won't actually go down, the Paul Ryan solution is to cut taxes on the wealthy down to 25%.
And borrow & spend Republicans wonder why we're 14 trillion in the hole.
Since you're so lazy (comes from gubmint working,eh?) and I'm so nice here's some quotes from your link.
"Republicans .... In their pledge to America, they promised that, "[w]ith common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone."
As time went on, it became clear that they wouldn't get the whole loaf, and the key question became: How many billions of dollars in spending would Democrats agree to cut..."
Gosh it seems even your source thinks the Dems had some control over the size of the cuts. It goes on...
"When the deal went down in early April, both Democrats and Republicans characterized it as a historic spending cut bill -- a triumph of bipartisanship..."
Gee those Dems were part of the decision making after all.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
