Democrat-Friendly Budget Deal Reached

H

Howey

Banned
The deal, which was negotiated over the past few weeks by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.),*would set spending for the next fiscal year at $1.012 trillion and increase it to $1.014 trillion the year after that. Should their budget framework actually pass through Congress, it would represent an increase in federal spending by $45 billion in one year and $63 billion over the course of two years.

To pay for those increases, Murray and Ryan agreed to hike airline travel fees and require both federal workers and military personnel to contribute a greater portion of funds to their pensions, among other provisions.

The deal does not include an agreement to raise the nation's debt limit, which the Treasury has forecast will be hit between*March and June.

Both Murray and Ryan hailed the deal as a major breakthrough in a press conference.

"For far too long here in Washington D.C. compromise has been considered a dirty word, especially when it comes to the budget," Murray said. "We have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock."

The deal is very close to the halfway compromise Murray dangled at the start of the talks, coming in between the Senate's budget level of $1.058 trillion and the House's $967 billion. But to get Ryan to agree to undo some of the draconian, across-the-board sequestration cuts, Murray apparently had to find money elsewhere. The budget framework produces savings and non-tax revenue totaling $85 billion, $20 billion to $23 billion of which would be devoted to deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

ttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4421624/
 
Last edited:
would set spending for the next fiscal year at $1.012 trillion and increase it to $1.014 trillion the year after that
Click to expand...

What is this referring to? 1.012 sounds like the budget for Social Security or the Military, not the entire Federal Government.
 
I'm stealing this post from a liberal poster on another board. My reason being it's just interesting how we all view the same deal differently. Howey thinks its Dem friendly, Boris thinks Republicans are grabbing ankles and this liberal is pissed.



""Every Dem who votes for this clusterfuck should be voted out....starting with Patty Murray.

This is no deal. This is blue dog Dems giving in to the minority GOP once again. How can anyone accept giving MORE MONEY to the MIC, the wealthy corporations and the 1%, whilst taking money from fed workers, military service men and middle class Americans on unemployment?

This is not compromise by any measure. What is middle class America getting out of this deal other than the GOPigs not shutting down the Government again? Am I missing something?

Elizabeth Warren should have been at the table with Lying Ryan, she would not have let this happen.

The middle class gets screwed again in the name of compromise and bipartisanship. ""
 
cawacko said:
I'm stealing this post from a liberal poster on another board. My reason being it's just interesting how we all view the same deal differently. Howey thinks its Dem friendly, Boris thinks Republicans are grabbing ankles and this liberal is pissed.



""Every Dem who votes for this clusterfuck should be voted out....starting with Patty Murray.

This is no deal. This is blue dog Dems giving in to the minority GOP once again. How can anyone accept giving MORE MONEY to the MIC, the wealthy corporations and the 1%, whilst taking money from fed workers, military service men and middle class Americans on unemployment?

This is not compromise by any measure. What is middle class America getting out of this deal other than the GOPigs not shutting down the Government again? Am I missing something?

Elizabeth Warren should have been at the table with Lying Ryan, she would not have let this happen.

The middle class gets screwed again in the name of compromise and bipartisanship. ""
Click to expand...

Glad you brought it up.

It's called "compromise". For Democrats, it could have been a lot worse. As it is, sequestration is reduced with this bill, medicare and medicaid are untouched, and there are various other promising features to the bill. Unemployment? I'm hopeful something will be added.

Face it...far left liberals want everything. Far right conservatives want everything. Even I, a progressive, understand the need for compromise at this moment in time. Oh, I forgot. I'm ok with necessary military spending and modifying pensions for future veterans, as this does.

This basically parallels my view:

For many congressional Democrats, this is hardly encouraging. The agreement leaves Social Security and Medicare largely untouched, but it doesn’t extend unemployment benefits, it leaves much of the ridiculous sequester in place, and the budget continues to needlessly focus on deficit reduction, without raising a penny in new taxes on the wealthy. That said, Dems have maintained low expectations all along, realizing that any budget deal reached with Paul Ryan would be disappointing.

“This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like – and I know many Republicans feel the same way,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s the nature of compromise. But it’s a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done.”

But while progressives are underwhelmed and dissatisfied with the agreement, conservatives went straight for outrage. Far-right groups such as Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity all condemned the deal – before it had even been announced. The Republicans’ activist base believe the spending levels are too high – as they see it, less public investment is necessarily worthwhile, even if it’s a drag on the economy – and the deal doesn’t undermine social-insurance programs at all.

A few dozen House Republicans are already rebelling, and a variety of Republican Tea Party candidates are turning this into a litmus-test issue – to support the bipartisan budget deal, which the left has little reason to like, is to prove one’s self insufficiently right-wing.

Indeed, even Ryan himself is drawing the ire of conservatives in a way he’s never been before.

So what happens now? The plan is for House Republican leaders to try to get the bill passed before the end of this week, and the timing is important – the chamber leaves for the year on Friday and won’t return until January. Current government funding runs out on Jan. 15, at which point the government would shut down (again).

If House GOP lawmakers revolt (again), the deal may be able to pass with Democratic votes, but let’s not forget that House Dems aren’t exactly crazy about this agreement, either.

Expect the lobbying over the next 48 hours to get pretty intense.
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
Another incredibly stupid and false claim; here we have a deal that INCREASES deficit spending while falsely CLAIMING there will be savings. I cannot imagine how gullible and stupid people have to be to buy this incredible nonsense.
Click to expand...

that IS pretty stupid...."well, we paid back $23b on the deficit today".....where did you get the money to do that?......"uh, we borrowed it"........

(wait, how did my response to you end up in front of your post?)
 
Last edited:
Howey said:
The deal, which was negotiated over the past few weeks by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.),*would set spending for the next fiscal year at $1.012 trillion and increase it to $1.014 trillion the year after that. Should their budget framework actually pass through Congress, it would represent an increase in federal spending by $45 billion in one year and $63 billion over the course of two years. .
Click to expand...

Okay dimwit; spending is not set at $1.012 trillion. That is the “negotiated” acceptable discretionary spending.

Government spending currently exceeds $3.8 trillion. In other words, for dullard leftists who are math challenged, the INCREASE in the DEFICIT will probably be about $45 billion.

Howey said:
To pay for those increases, Murray and Ryan agreed to hike airline travel fees and require both federal workers and military personnel to contribute a greater portion of funds to their pensions, among other provisions. .
Click to expand...

This claim is about as lame as deliberately increasing the deficit by $45 billion to satisfy big spending dimwitted Democrats.
So does anyone want to bet the revenue will not cover the increased deficit spending?

So the better question is, what the American people are getting for increasing the deficits by $45 billion which will hike the nation’s debt to about $1 trillion; which we, the sheeple, will be forced to pay off.

Howey said:
The deal does not include an agreement to raise the nation's debt limit, which the Treasury has forecast will be hit between*March and June. .
Click to expand...

In other words, expect another massive fight to raise the debt limit in March when deficits exceed projections…again.

Howey said:
Both Murray and Ryan hailed the deal as a major breakthrough in a press conference. .
Click to expand...

Only because they are both really areTHAT stupid.

Howey said:
"For far too long here in Washington D.C. compromise has been considered a dirty word, especially when it comes to the budget," Murray said. "We have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock." .
Click to expand...

Wrong again Democrat dimwits; you have broken the piggy bank again thanks to the efforts of the media to paint Republicans as heartless women, minority and children haters.

Howey said:
The deal is very close to the halfway compromise Murray dangled at the start of the talks, coming in between the Senate's budget level of $1.058 trillion and the House's $967 billion.
Click to expand...

Once again dimwit, the budget level is not $1.058 trillion; that would be discretionary spending. You see, they cannot stop their spending spree regardless of the massive accumulation of debt and failure of the equally massive $850 billion spending binge they promised the sheeple would create good paying jobs. Of course that too, was a lie.

Howey said:
But to get Ryan to agree to undo some of the draconian, across-the-board sequestration cuts, Murray apparently had to find money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

This is another incredibly stupid and dimwitted claim; that an increase in deficit spending equates to draconian cuts. Are you really this incredibly stupid, or do you have to work at it?

Only math challenged painfully stupid leftists can believe that an increase in deficit spending is a draconian cut.

Howey said:
The budget framework produces savings and non-tax revenue totaling $85 billion, $20 billion to $23 billion of which would be devoted to deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

Another incredibly stupid and false claim; here we have a deal that INCREASES deficit spending while falsely CLAIMING there will be savings. I cannot imagine how gullible and stupid people have to be to buy this incredible nonsense.

If you have $85 billion in savings, why do you need to INCREASE deficit spending by $45 billion? DUH!
Yes Howey; you really are THAT stupid and THAT gullible.
 
Dear Mr. Boehner; I will believe the deficit will be reduced when I see it...NOT a moment sooner.

I am quite certain that this "budget" deal also assumes a certain level of increased revenues coming in that have a likelihood of not matrializing.

So far, I cannot find anything that indicates what the new level of Federal spending will be. I am sure it includes more massive deficits close to the levels of 2013.

Discretionary spending for 2013 was set at $986.4 billion. The planned level with mandatory sequestration cuts would have put it at $967.4. So this deal will increase that by $44.6 billion and Congress will no longer be inhibited by the sequester.

I’m not buying the claim that there will be corresponding decreases in other spending; it just does not pan out. This deal is betting on LONG TERM savings from reducing government pensions.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/10/news/economy/spending-cuts-2014/index.html
 
We paid nothing on the deficit. That's an absurdity. If your family is deficit spending lowering the amount they borrow to spend is not paying anything. You pay debt, you reduce a deficit.
 
Only in Washington and among the very stupid could this deal make any sense

Supreme Court has ruled that no present Congress can bind any future Congress with regards to spending.

This is a joke
 
Damocles said:
We paid nothing on the deficit. That's an absurdity. If your family is deficit spending lowering the amount they borrow to spend is not paying anything. You pay debt, you reduce a deficit.
Click to expand...

It’s always refreshing to see people who actually "get" it.
 
Yeah! Like what a fucking deal! The twerpy little maggot neo-con RINO Ryan the supposed economic genius fell once again for the fucking Democrat scam of raising taxes/fees for a promise of reducing deficits a decade in the future by a future Congress.

Then we have the worst of the worst fucking Republican two-faced neo-con RINO maggot Boehner standing before the House and badmouthing the only Republicans in the Congress with the brains and balls to call this lipsticked pig the pathetic pile of steaming shit it really is and voting NO fucking way on it.

The stupid sons-of-bitches like Ryan and Boehner are too fucking brain-dead to realize the nation is several times better off under the sequester that already exist.

Maybe the House Republican primary elections will get interesting again soon, huh? Maybe the Goofus Old Party will do some more HOUSE cleaning, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top