PDA

View Full Version : Economics CBO: Reid's plan cuts $2.2 Trillion while Boehner's cut only $850 billion


dirk digler
07-27-2011, 08:19 AM
LMAO

So is really serious? :p

In the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by Speaker John Boehner, which had to be pulled back from a floor Tuesday night for retooling.


The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday morning that credits the Senate bill with reducing budget deficits by about $2.2 trillion through 2021, nearly three times the $850 billion credited to the Boehner bill on Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60018.html#ixzz1TJcInzLl

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:30 AM
Eh, alot of the Senate's advantage in size of cuts are silly accounting rules that the CBO uses in making its calculations. I was getting ready to post this too but in reading the full article, it's nowhere near as impressive as it sounds.

Bewbies
07-27-2011, 08:32 AM
I read somewhere that Reid's plan actually doesn't cut anything, and double counts ending both wars...?

I could google it, but I'm busy.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 08:37 AM
Eh, alot of the Senate's advantage in size of cuts are silly accounting rules that the CBO uses in making its calculations. I was getting ready to post this too but in reading the full article, it's nowhere near as impressive as it sounds.

I know but I still think it is kind of funny.

|Zach|
07-27-2011, 08:38 AM
I read somewhere that Reid's plan actually doesn't cut anything, and double counts ending both wars...?

I could google it, but I'm busy.

Yea keep us updated on that.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 08:40 AM
And the WH sort of defended Boehner's bill and said it cut $1.2 trillion. Of course that immediately killed the bill.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 08:42 AM
Does anyone see Boehner keeping the Speakership after the next election? Getting hard to imagine really.

mlyonsd
07-27-2011, 08:52 AM
Does anyone see Boehner keeping the Speakership after the next election? Getting hard to imagine really.You mean because they'll lose the house or republicans will vote for a different speaker? ROFL

I think he's doing all right.

FD
07-27-2011, 08:52 AM
Does anyone see Boehner keeping the Speakership after the next election? Getting hard to imagine really.

After this whole debate I don't see why he would want it.

jjjayb
07-27-2011, 08:52 AM
Does anyone see Boehner keeping the Speakership after the next election? Getting hard to imagine really.

About as hard as Obama keeping the presidency. :thumb:

Garcia Bronco
07-27-2011, 08:54 AM
"about $2.2 trillion through 2021, "

Not enough....not even fucking close. - Article fail

Donger
07-27-2011, 08:55 AM
I'm just glad that these tards are even TALKING about reducing spending and I think it's accurate to say that is happening because of the Republicans.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 09:32 AM
You mean because they'll lose the house or republicans will vote for a different speaker? ROFL

I think he's doing all right.

Either or

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/173795-tea-party-leader-calls-for-boehner-to-step-down
Tea Party leader calls for Boehner to step down


By Cameron Joseph and Daniel Strauss - 07/27/11 10:41 AM ET


Tea Party Nation lead Judson Phillips called on House Speaker John Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House" in a blog post Wednesday morning, the same day that Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said that her group was looking into the same idea.

"Now Boehner is in the process of surrendering again. He is surrendering not to [President] Obama, but to the status quo in Washington," Phillips wrote. "The House passed Cut, Cap and Balance, which would cut $111 billion from the budget. It would cap spending and set a good course for the future."

Martin sounded a similar theme at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, saying that in a just-completed poll of their members, four-fifths are not satisfied with Boehner and nearly three-quarters would like to have a new Speaker of the House.

"Maybe we should see about a different Speaker right away," she said.
Philips was more strident in his criticism. "Boehner has no real interest in solving the problems this country faces. ... He worships at the altar of massive spending," he wrote. "We need a Speaker who is a leader. We need someone with courage and vision. Boehner has none of those qualities. He is not a leader."

Phillips urged readers to call their legislators and advocate for Boehner "to go" and be replaced by a "Tea Party Speaker of the House."

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 09:36 AM
LMAO Vote for my bill that does less than that deficit hawk Harry Reid.

"Get your ass in line."

-- House Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60022.html), telling GOP lawmakers in a closed-door meeting to behind his debt ceiling bill.

He added, "I can't do this job unless you're behind me."

Hydrae
07-27-2011, 09:42 AM
Isn't Boehner's plan a two step process and this would be looking at the first step only? If so, then of course it is much smaller than the one step move from Reid.

I haven't followed this very closely at all so I may be off base here. Just let me know if that is the case.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 10:06 AM
Isn't Boehner's plan a two step process and this would be looking at the first step only? If so, then of course it is much smaller than the one step move from Reid.

I haven't followed this very closely at all so I may be off base here. Just let me know if that is the case.

His 2nd step is to create a commission to find more cuts

Cave Johnson
07-27-2011, 10:10 AM
Per NPR (and the CBO) this am, Reid's savings were overstated by 23%, Boehner's by 29%.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:12 AM
I read somewhere that Reid's plan actually doesn't cut anything, and double counts ending both wars...?

I could google it, but I'm busy.

No, it's problem is that it presumes military spending at "surge" levels that would never have been spent. So a lot of the savings (about $1 trillion) is derived from a number that is made up. Sort of like saying "I bought a car for $50K this year, but if I don't continue that practice I'll save $450K by not buying another car for the remaining nine years" - when you had no intention of buying a new car each year anyway.

Also, the CBO can't score the results that Boehner would derive from the second-tier of debt reduction next year. Plus, it's my understanding they are re-writing the bill so the first series of cuts is closer to $1.1 trillion.

Still, as I've said elsewhere, since no one is really serious about the problem (Boehner's plan only cuts the equivalent on 6 HOURS of deficit spending in 2012), the GOP should take Reid's gimmicky proposal and graft the Balanced Budget Amendment and, if they want to perform the masturbatory exercise of trimming another trillion or so ten years from now (with a law that future congresses can and, if Democratic, probably would ignore) then have at it. It would be the politically smart thing to do, even though as a practical matter it would have little to know impact on the real problem.

vailpass
07-27-2011, 10:12 AM
Thanks for the misleading OP

WV
07-27-2011, 10:13 AM
I have what may be considered a dumb question by some, but why exactly are they conducting budget type talks in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling. Aren't these and shouldn't these pretty much be seperately debated issues? I don't ever remember having all this fuss about raising the debt ceiling in the past.

alpha_omega
07-27-2011, 10:16 AM
It all sounds like a bunch of BS blue sky to me.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:19 AM
I have what may be considered a dumb question by some, but why exactly are they conducting budget type talks in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling. Aren't these and shouldn't these pretty much be seperately debated issues? I don't ever remember having all this fuss about raising the debt ceiling in the past.

That's because the deficit wasn't ever a trillion dollars before...let alone trillion dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see.

But don't worry - like all things political, the politicians aren't really addressing the issue. They're squabbling over who can come up with bigger cuts in the future because no one wants to lose their goodies today. So there will be a lot of chest-puffing and scary talk that will result in a plan that accomplishes nothing as the politicians pat each other on the back.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 10:21 AM
That's because the deficit wasn't ever a trillion dollars before...let alone trillion dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see.

But don't worry - like all things political, the politicians aren't really addressing the issue. They're squabbling over who can come up with bigger cuts in the future because no one wants to lose their goodies today. So there will be a lot of chest-puffing and scary talk that will result in a plan that accomplishes nothing as the politicians pat each other on the back.

No wonder RCP's poll shows congressional job disapproval at 73%.

Taco John
07-27-2011, 10:24 AM
I have what may be considered a dumb question by some, but why exactly are they conducting budget type talks in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling. Aren't these and shouldn't these pretty much be seperately debated issues? I don't ever remember having all this fuss about raising the debt ceiling in the past.


Because of the political reality of 2010. The tea party delivered the house to the Republicans, and thus set the agenda in the house. The debt ceiling vote has come up, and just about every freshman representative has said they will not vote to extend the debt ceiling unless along with that debt ceiling extension comes serious cuts and reform. They are saying "we're voting today to extend the debt ceiling for expenses we incurred yesterday - this is not how government should operate." And they're right. So they're pushing for a balanced budget amendment that would force the congress of today to pay for the spending of today, without having a debt ceiling gun put to the taxpayer's heads every 6 months.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:25 AM
One interesting side-note to this: the White House budget experts actually came out after the CBO scoring to defend Boehner's original numbers and said they disagreed with the CBO. Largely because Obama and his team don't actually want real cuts, they want phantom cuts that make it look like they're curbing Obama and the Dems massive spending increases while not actually doing much.

They also probably didn't want to have to help re-write Reid's gimmicky plan again since it now fails the litmus test of delivering more (phony) cuts than it asks for new debt.

I heard a talking head bemoan that the GOP is just trying to cut too fast and it will hurt the economy. It made me think why, if Obama was allowed to hurt the long-term stability of the US by expanding government 30+%, why was it "radical" to reduce the level of spending now that we know Obama's policies didn't work?

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 10:29 AM
No wonder RCP's poll shows congressional job disapproval at 73%.

Their disapproval is only 73%? I figured it would be even higher.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 10:38 AM
Their disapproval is only 73%? I figured it would be even higher.

I agree. It should be 100%.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 10:48 AM
Thanks for the misleading OP

It is not misleading and it is linked in the OP. CBO stated this I didn't.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 11:21 AM
It is not misleading and it is linked in the OP. CBO stated this I didn't.

Labeling these numbers as "cuts" in the first place is misleading since most of the "savings" comes from reducing the otherwise projected rate of growth. The deficit grows considerably under both proposals which is why neither side is really serious about fixing the actual problem.

patteeu
07-27-2011, 11:33 AM
Isn't Boehner's plan a two step process and this would be looking at the first step only? If so, then of course it is much smaller than the one step move from Reid.

I haven't followed this very closely at all so I may be off base here. Just let me know if that is the case.

His 2nd step is to create a commission to find more cuts

Cuts that will either be implemented or the debt ceiling won't be increased past the election. Hydrae's observation makes a lot more sense than this thread does.

patteeu
07-27-2011, 11:37 AM
I have what may be considered a dumb question by some, but why exactly are they conducting budget type talks in conjunction with raising the debt ceiling. Aren't these and shouldn't these pretty much be seperately debated issues? I don't ever remember having all this fuss about raising the debt ceiling in the past.

Because the people who want to restrain spending only control half of Congress so they normally don't have any leverage at all to put legislation in front of the POTUS. That's also why they've been pushing for something substantial in return for allowing the POTUS to push the next debt ceiling debate past the election.

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 11:38 AM
I know that the spending will be cut by 40% if they don't get a deal.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:38 AM
Does anyone see Boehner keeping the Speakership after the next election? Getting hard to imagine really.

If he don't get his shit together....then again Reid and Pelosi are still leaders....so what's that tell you?

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 11:39 AM
Can you dig it, the US government going to a payday advance place to get enough money to make it through the month?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:40 AM
The problem with the Reid plan is that it encompasses two changeovers and ceiling increases along with cuts listed over 10 years. The positive for Reid, the POTUS, and Dems is that he desires to remove the ceiling issue until AFTER the next election.

If anyone believes that this plan will see fruition as it is written 10 years from now, I would love your phone number so we can discuss you buying futures in my groundhog manufacturing plant.

It is akin to an employee taking on extra duties and responsibilities today on the promise from his immediate boss that he will receive a promotion 10 years hence. While your boss may move on, be replaced, and his bosses have the power to amend any agreement he makes at any time.

VAChief
07-27-2011, 11:42 AM
You mean because they'll lose the house or republicans will vote for a different speaker? ROFL

I think he's doing all right.

I honestly like him better as the Speaker than before. Less, at least relatively, partisan rhetoric. Anyone but Cantor...well or Pelosi.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:47 AM
I honestly like him better as the Speaker than before. Less, at least relatively, partisan rhetoric. Anyone but Cantor...well or Pelosi.

If Nancy can keep her position, then an inept bathroom attendant could, let alone Boehner.

orange
07-27-2011, 11:54 AM
The problem with the Reid plan is that it encompasses two changeovers and ceiling increases along with cuts listed over 10 years.

And this is different?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 12:01 PM
And this is different?

The major difference is the time of review. Ask your yourself, and ask honestly, why is it so crucial that the ceiling review occur after the next election? The most logical reason I can assume is that they are scared that another financial issue displaying their failures over the last several years would be damning to their chances at re-election.

Don't the Democrats who screwed this up over the last 2 years owe it to their constituents to review the process more closely and more often?

Why do you think the Republicans are not scared to review the process again prior to the next election?

orange
07-27-2011, 12:20 PM
The major difference is the time of review. Ask your yourself, and ask honestly, why is it so crucial that the ceiling review occur after the next election?

Here is the comparable picture for Reid's plan.

In reality, no Congress has any say in what the next Congress will do. That's why the TPers are demanding the Balanced Budget Amendment - and I'm going to agree with them on this point - without it, the rest after the first two years for both plans is ether. So let's look at the first two years - the REAL cuts.

Even leaving out the Afghanistan drawdown, Reid's plan has - $24 billion and - $46 billion. In REAL cuts. How does that compare to Boehner's Boner? BB - $1 billion and - $16 billion. My goodness, I'd say Reid's cuts look a little bit deeper. :hmmm:

As for the rest - Boner's Phase II or whatever - what extortion victim has ever wanted to promise the extorter can come over and hold the gun to his head again next week?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 12:27 PM
Here is the comparable picture for Reid's plan.

In reality, no Congress has any say in what the next Congress will do. That's why the TPers are demanding the Balanced Budget Amendment - and I'm going to agree with them on this point - without it, the rest after the first two years for both plans is ether. So let's look at the first two years - the REAL cuts.

Even leaving out the Afghanistan drawdown, Reid's plan has - $24 billion and - $46 billion. In REAL cuts. How does that compare to Boehner's Boner?

As for the rest - Boner's Phase II or whatever - what extortion victim has ever wanted to promise the extorter can come over and hold the gun to his head again next week?
You missed the major point of my post - the time of review of the debt ceiling. The Dems are the ones who have exacerbated this issue to the point of a downgrade of credit - blame the Reps for the previous economy (which is half false) blame them for previous spendings that shouldn't have occured. But the fact is that the Dems were voted in 3 years ago to do one thing - CHANGE the landscape. Instead they continued to spend willy nilly without a freaking budget in place. Now they are busted with their hands in the cookie jar - with the economy worse off than when they took over, with the unemployment rate worse off than when they took over, etc etc etc.

So instead of fixing the problem, they offer a bone and ask that we overlook their faux pas the next election. I find it offensive.

orange
07-27-2011, 12:36 PM
But the fact is that the Dems were voted in 3 years ago to do one thing - CHANGE the landscape.

You actually believe the Dems were voted in 3 years ago to cut Govt. programs?!? :rolleyes:

You've been out clubbing with sportsshrink, haven't you?

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 12:37 PM
Cuts that will either be implemented or the debt ceiling won't be increased past the election. Hydrae's observation makes a lot more sense than this thread does.

It will be ok pat, I know that deficit hawk Harry fucking Reid made Boehner look silly but you will get over it eventually. :D

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 02:07 PM
And this is different?

Not really. They're both gimmicky reductions of the rate of spending increases then real "cuts". I think the GOP probably wants to act more proactively than the Dems but, as I've said before, it's sort of like one group promising to only run up 10 new credit cards while the other wants to be patted on the back for only running up 8 new credit cards.

But I doubt there would have been any discussion about anything had the Dems remained in control of both houses of Congress. The GOP has won a lot in this debate -- I'm just not so certain that they're smart enough to realize it.

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:09 PM
Seems like Reid's plan isn't quite so spectacular after all...

Senate Democratic leaders said Wednesday they, too, will have to go back and rewrite their debt-increase plan, meaning that with just six days to go until the government bumps up against its borrowing limit there is no viable plan pending in either chamber.

House Republicans on Tuesday pulled their own plan from the schedule after the Congressional Budget Office said it cut spending by $50 billion less than it increased the debt — violating a pledge the GOP’s leaders had made to match increases dollar-for-dollar with new cuts.

On Wednesday Senate Democrats had to follow suit Wednesday after CBO said their plan fell $500 billion short of their own debt increase.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who wrote his party’s bill, said it will only need some “tweaking” to close the half-trillion dollar gap between his debt increase and his spending reductions.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 02:13 PM
You missed the major point of my post - the time of review of the debt ceiling. The Dems are the ones who have exacerbated this issue to the point of a downgrade of credit - blame the Reps for the previous economy (which is half false) blame them for previous spendings that shouldn't have occured. But the fact is that the Dems were voted in 3 years ago to do one thing - CHANGE the landscape. Instead they continued to spend willy nilly without a freaking budget in place. Now they are busted with their hands in the cookie jar - with the economy worse off than when they took over, with the unemployment rate worse off than when they took over, etc etc etc.

So instead of fixing the problem, they offer a bone and ask that we overlook their faux pas the next election. I find it offensive.

Medicare D and the war in Iraq, among other things, falls on the shoulders of Bush/GOP (even though both had broad bi-partisan support in Congress). The mammoth increases since Bush are squarely on Obama and the Dems -- as well as the continued expansion going forward based on the enormous move in the baseline that they introduced when they had total control on the government.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 02:14 PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who wrote his party’s bill, said it will only need some “tweaking” to close the half-trillion dollar gap between his debt increase and his spending reductions.[/I]

What a joke.

Look for more a half trillion in new "cuts" in year 9-10...

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:53 PM
You actually believe the Dems were voted in 3 years ago to cut Govt. programs?!? :rolleyes:

You've been out clubbing with sportsshrink, haven't you?

No, I stated they promised CHANGE and for the better. They LIED.

They continued on the same vein of the Bush era spending WHILE exacerbating the situation by ignoring a budget. The Democrats are at fault and I honestly think only an ignorant child would try and shove this back to the last administration.

As far as insults go, I am not interested in playing.

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 04:21 PM
No, I stated they promised CHANGE and for the better. They LIED.

They continued on the same vein of the Bush era spending WHILE exacerbating the situation by ignoring a budget. The Democrats are at fault and I honestly think only an ignorant child would try and shove this back to the last administration.

As far as insults go, I am not interested in playing.

Oh, it "CHANGED" a lot, we have now left our children more debt to inherit.

orange
07-27-2011, 05:32 PM
As far as insults go, I am not interested in playing.

Being compared to sportsshrink has your vagina roughed-up? I haven't even gotten warmed up, yet. You want insults?

Foolish Bizarre Deceiving

How about those words? They're not mine, of course.

What is really amazing about this is that some, some members are believing that we can pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish – that is deceiving. …” McCain said on the Senate floor on Wednesday afternoon.

“That is not fair to the American people, to hold out and say we won’t agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. It’s unfair, it’s bizarro. And maybe some people have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. Others know better. Others know better.” - Senator John McCain.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0711/McCain_teaparty_freshmen_foolish_on_balanced_budget.html

FD
07-27-2011, 06:11 PM
Ezra Klein on the CBO scores:

There’s more to the CBO score than meets the eye
By Ezra Klein

Democrats are thrilled that the Congressional Budget Office scored Harry Reid’s plan (pdf) as saving more than twice as much as John Boehner’s plan (pdf). But let’s be clear: Reid’s plan does not save twice as much money as Boehner’s plan. It probably saves about the same amount of money as Boehner’s plan, at least at the outset. It just fits Reid’s strategy to emphasize his savings and it fits Boehner’s strategy to hide his savings. The difference between the two scores says less about the two plans than it does about the maneuvering that led to them, and the CBO itself.

Both the Reid and Boehner plans cut about $850 billion in discretionary spending. The major difference — at least in terms of immediate cuts — is that Reid’s plan tells the Congressional Budget Office that he’s winding down the wars, which nets him $1 trillion, while Boehner doesn’t say anything about the wars. But this isn’t a policy difference between the two men. Boehner’s office calls that $1 trillion “war money that would never have been spent.”

Some months ago, Boehner laid down his “dollar-for-dollar” principle: Republicans wouldn’t agree to lift the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to cuts that are “greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority.” But that left a question on the table: What’s a “cut”?

Well, in Congress, a cut is often whatever the Congressional Budget Office says it is. Boehner’s dollar-for-dollar demand thus set up an odd dynamic in which Democrats wrote their package in such a way that CBO said it had lots of cuts, and Republicans wrote their package so that CBO couldn’t see some of the cuts. What was perhaps less expected was that the two sides would write almost identical packages — at least for the initial round of cuts — and thus highlight quirks in the budget process.

But they did. And so here’s the bottom line: If we use the Democrats’ package, Boehner’s dollar-for-dollar demand is met. If we use Boehner’s package, the plan is about $1.5 trillion short of meeting the dollar-for-dollar requirement, and thus Republicans can demand more cuts and concessions. But the specific cuts that will happen if we implement the first round of the two packages are pretty much the same.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 11:43 PM
Ezra Klein on the CBO scores:

I like Ezra Klein's writing but he's far from a neutral arbiter of political matters...