Obama's proposed spending cuts won't even pay the interest on our debt

[mlyonsd]

The Cost of Spending: Can deficit-reduction plans make a dent?

By Bret Baier
Published December 19, 2012 FoxNews.com

The report from President Obama's highly touted deficit-reduction commission came out two years and 18 days ago.

On that brisk December morning, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad painted a dire picture if lawmakers didn't move quickly.

"If we fail to act now, our country could find itself in a circumstance in which we have to take draconian action, at the worst possible time in the middle of a crisis. I pray to God that we have the wisdom to act before that point," he said.

The two commission co-chairmen couldn't agree more. "This baby ain't going away," co-chairman Alan Simpson said.

But so far, Congress has not been able to pass a plan that achieves what their proposal would -- a $4 trillion deficit reduction within 10 years. And it's unclear if they ever will.

In the current talks over the looming fiscal crisis, the deal on the table is considerably smaller -- and yet President Obama said Wednesday that Republicans should be pleased with the spending cuts they'd be getting him to sign onto.

"Take the deal," he said. "You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package; that we will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it."
But clearly, they're not.

Last week, Republicans warned about "kicking the can down the road" and "doing all the gimmicks that have been done in the past."

Whether either party will kick that habit, though, remains to be seen. With the government spending roughly $10 billion a day, the cuts that are being proposed wouldn't even cover the interest on the debt.

Spending is not projected to go down. At best, the rate of growth in spending would slow.

"The word 'cut' is what government statisticians and budget officials call it -- but in fact it's just really a slowing of growth, and sometimes the growth is still quite high even after it's slowed down," said John Taylor, a Stanford University economist.

Arthur Brooks, with the American Enterprise Institute, explained: "They assume that if this year we spend 5 percent, next year we're gonna spend 8 percent, and the year after that we're gonna spend 10 percent. And they say 'well I'll tell you what, why don't we cut a percentage point off each one of those rates of growth?' ... Well, that's not a cut."

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh noted that "no family, no business, no philanthropy" would operate that way.

"I think there are some passages in Alice in Wonderland that must have dealt with this, because in Washington less of an increase is considered a cut, even though it's more money," he said.

So why not scrap that system altogether? Bayh said some have suggested doing that, and budgeting every year by starting from zero and saying "how much money do we have?"

"That's the way every business, every family, ever charitable foundation has to operate -- would be good if the federal government did that too," he said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2Fe3RyoDz

[HonestChieffan]

Obamas spending cuts are a sham. Its not a spending cut at all. A spending cut would impact next year. No one has the balls to cut spending next year. They all make me sick. The stupid voters have no clue the screwing we are taking from all these rotten bastards.

[CoMoChief]

It's not a cut at all.

These crooks have NO PLANS WHAT SO EVER to try and reduce our debt.

You liberals need to realize that. But you won't....you think money grows on trees.

[GoChargers]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

You liberals need to realize that. But you won't....you think money grows on trees.

No, they simply don't understand the consequences of just printing enough fiat money to cover these expenses. Most so-called conservatives don't either.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

No, they simply don't understand the consequences of just printing enough fiat money to cover these expenses. Most so-called conservatives don't either.

Money growing on trees = priniting meaningless paper money w/ zero value.

[Dayze]

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

Dumb is not having such a requirement

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

How do you expect an elected official to keep his job if he ever has to be the bad guy?

Both sides are guilty. The unfortunate thing is we have a president that is facing a long term crisis and he doesn't lead.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

How do you expect an elected official to keep his job if he ever has to be the bad guy?

Both sides are guilty. The unfortunate thing is we have a president that is facing a long term crisis and he doesn't lead.

i don't necessarily disagree but i wonder when i hear that o'bama doesn't lead what is it that he is supposed to do to be a leader?

can he individually buttonhole the tea partiers and hard-right conservative reps in the house and persuade them to compromise?

when their own leaders cannot?

what actions would constitute "leadership" with regard to the fiscal cliff negotiations? what should he do?

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by go bowe

i don't necessarily disagree but i wonder when i hear that o'bama doesn't lead what is it that he is supposed to do to be a leader?

can he individually buttonhole the tea partiers and hard-right conservative reps in the house and persuade them to compromise?

when their own leaders cannot?

what actions would constitute "leadership" with regard to the fiscal cliff negotiations? what should he do?

He is "The Man" he needs to put forth a plan and sell it like he has sold himself for the last 6 years. Bush sold a bunch of dems on a gazillion dollar war, I think Obama could sway some r's over a few trillion dollars.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

He is "The Man" he needs to put forth a plan and sell it like he has sold himself for the last 6 years. Bush sold a bunch of dems on a gazillion dollar war, I think Obama could sway some r's over a few trillion dollars.

Again, why? What is the purpose of raising the taxes solely on "The rich" and not making realistic spending cuts?

Do you believe this will balance our budget?

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

Balanced budget? Hell these jokers in DC haven't even had a budget for what 3 years now?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

Because there are legitimately times when it may be necessary to run a budget deficit.

If your economy is in a recession, deficit spending is largely considered the #1 way to inject demand into a struggling economy.

The problem, of course, is that the government needs to later tighten its belt. Bring in more revenue and/or reduce its spending. Democrats have been long resistent to cut spending, and Republicans have been long resistant to increase revenue.

So here we are.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Dayze

probably a dumb question, but a serious one,...why isn't there a requirement to have a balanced budget?

Constitution doesn't have one, so where would such a requirement come from.

And, just for the record, there was something like ONE year when the federal government had zero debt. Late in Andrew Jackson's administration, if memory serves. The federal government has always had debt otherwise (though not always deficits, obviously).

[Comrade Crapski]

And his tax increases will cover about 6 days of government spending.