GOP drops some promises out of the gate

[Canceled2]

i did not see that, thanks

how is their 5% cut going to reduce spending levels to 2008?

There are more likely cuts to come yurt

From the link:

House GOP will need to cut spending for the remainder of this fiscal year by about $55 billion to hit the 2008 level. That is less than $100 billion, but the higher cut number was based on proposed spending by Obama for 2011 that wasn’t enacted.

The chart puts proposed spending cuts in context. House GOP leaders now admit that they spent too much during the past decade, and indeed the chart shows that nondefense discretionary spending jumped $264 billion over the last decade. Much of the increase came when the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and White House, so now is the GOP’s chance to start reversing out those Bush-era increases.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

*thump thump*

That's your Libertarian heart Yurt.

 

[Phantasmal]

is this the part where I can say 'I told ya so'?

yes

 

[Bonestorm]

you just get angry when you're called on your partisan bullshit...you get this way all the time with everyone

its obvious it bothers you, so instead of actually discussing the issues, its much easier to attack the person

I'm not angry at all. And I'm not sure what's bullshit about calling you out for repeatedly attributing to me things I did not say.

I'm more than happy to discuss the issues, just not with ankle-biting nitwits that misrepresent the things I write.

 

[Bonestorm]

There are more likely cuts to come yurt

From the link:

House GOP will need to cut spending for the remainder of this fiscal year by about $55 billion to hit the 2008 level. That is less than $100 billion, but the higher cut number was based on proposed spending by Obama for 2011 that wasn’t enacted.

The chart puts proposed spending cuts in context. House GOP leaders now admit that they spent too much during the past decade, and indeed the chart shows that nondefense discretionary spending jumped $264 billion over the last decade. Much of the increase came when the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and White House, so now is the GOP’s chance to start reversing out those Bush-era increases.

Shorter Ice Dancer: "At least $100 billion" means "$54 billion."


Hell, they aren't even going to hit the $54 billion number.

 

[NOVA]

what a hack...you can't call them out on their bullshit so you attack me

i gave you the broken promises and instead of admitting it, you attack...

Its been one fuckin' day you ass...what do you expect to happen in one day

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Its been one fuckin' day you ass...what do you expect to happen in one day

tell me how their proposed budget meets their promise

i don't think you can, convince me i'm wrong

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There are more likely cuts to come yurt

From the link:

House GOP will need to cut spending for the remainder of this fiscal year by about $55 billion to hit the 2008 level. That is less than $100 billion, but the higher cut number was based on proposed spending by Obama for 2011 that wasn’t enacted.

The chart puts proposed spending cuts in context. House GOP leaders now admit that they spent too much during the past decade, and indeed the chart shows that nondefense discretionary spending jumped $264 billion over the last decade. Much of the increase came when the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and White House, so now is the GOP’s chance to start reversing out those Bush-era increases.

so their 5% cut that they introduced, will bring spending back to 2008 levels? because it doesn't look that way on your chart

House Votes to Cut Its Budget by 5 Percent

WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled House has cut its own budget by 5 percent as a symbolic down payment on a promise to wrestle the budget deficit under control.

Lawmakers say the step shows they are leading by example as they look ahead to fulfilling a promise to return most domestic accounts to the levels in effect before President Obama took office.

But the accounts they cut by 5 percent to produce $35 million in budget savings have gone up by more than double that since the 2008 budget year. The budgets for the office expenses and staff salaries for rank-and-file lawmakers have gone up 14 percent since 2008, while expenses for congressional committees and leadership offices have increased by smaller amounts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/house-votes-cut-budget-percent/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Shorter Ice Dancer: "At least $100 billion" means "$54 billion."


Hell, they aren't even going to hit the $54 billion number.

I would be willing to bet that you are wrong. The $54billion and the $100b numbers will very likely be met by the House. Primarily a game as the Reps know the Dems won't be likely to go along with it in the Senate or White House.

You proclaiming that they won't hit the numbers is just as ridiculous as the ankle biter's proclamation that the Reps are reneging on the promise one day into their leadership of the House.

 

[Canceled2]

so their 5% cut that they introduced, will bring spending back to 2008 levels? because it doesn't look that way on your chart

House Votes to Cut Its Budget by 5 Percent

WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled House has cut its own budget by 5 percent as a symbolic down payment on a promise to wrestle the budget deficit under control.

Lawmakers say the step shows they are leading by example as they look ahead to fulfilling a promise to return most domestic accounts to the levels in effect before President Obama took office.

But the accounts they cut by 5 percent to produce $35 million in budget savings have gone up by more than double that since the 2008 budget year. The budgets for the office expenses and staff salaries for rank-and-file lawmakers have gone up 14 percent since 2008, while expenses for congressional committees and leadership offices have increased by smaller amounts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/house-votes-cut-budget-percent/

What is it with you guys who won't, apparently, read links in full and in context? Your link states the most recent cut is a"down payment" on their first day! The two links I posted discuss both future cuts and present realities...Just where in the hell are the "broken promises"?

 

[Onceler]

I'm not angry at all. And I'm not sure what's bullshit about calling you out for repeatedly attributing to me things I did not say. I'm more than happy to discuss the issues, just not with ankle-biting nitwits that misrepresent the things I write.

Interesting that this post got a few thank you's. Guess I'm not the only one....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

tell me how their proposed budget meets their promise

i don't think you can, convince me i'm wrong

Poor little Spaz... so eager to appear as though he is 'tough' on Reps, he emits complete nonsense.

Did the Reps say they were going to take every single line item back to 2008 levels or did they say they were going to take the total spending (minus defense) back to 2008 levels?

 

[Bonestorm]

I would be willing to bet that you are wrong. The $54billion and the $100b numbers will very likely be met by the House. Primarily a game as the Reps know the Dems won't be likely to go along with it in the Senate or White House.

You proclaiming that they won't hit the numbers is just as ridiculous as the ankle biter's proclamation that the Reps are reneging on the promise one day into their leadership of the House.

What would you be willing to wager?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What would you be willing to wager?

I am open for suggestions.

But we need to be very clear about the wager. We wouldn't want certain posters misconstruing what is written.

I am stating that the Reps will pass cuts in the HOUSE. I have no doubt the Dem led Senate and Obama will squash them respectively (Obama obviously can only technically squash something if it does indeed get by the Senate, but my point is he will come out against spending cuts by Reps)

 

[NOVA]

tell me how their proposed budget meets their promise

i don't think you can, convince me i'm wrong

They're gonna use the new and improved Democrat Math....spending won't go up by 100 billion next year, therefore, that will be a 100 billion dollar cut.

Its like Obama saving a million jobs a month.....same new math.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am open for suggestions.

But we need to be very clear about the wager. We wouldn't want certain posters misconstruing what is written.

I am stating that the Reps will pass cuts in the HOUSE. I have no doubt the Dem led Senate and Obama will squash them respectively (Obama obviously can only technically squash something if it does indeed get by the Senate, but my point is he will come out against spending cuts by Reps)

Oh, I'm confident that they'll pass cuts. I'm just relatively certain that the cuts will neither bring the budget down to 2008 levels nor amount to "at least $100 billion" in cuts to FY2010 levels.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Poor little Spaz... so eager to appear as though he is 'tough' on Reps, he emits complete nonsense.

Did the Reps say they were going to take every single line item back to 2008 levels or did they say they were going to take the total spending (minus defense) back to 2008 levels?

so how does a 5% budget cut bring us back to 2008 levels when those levels have risen 14%?

and i never said line item, try not get so emotionally retarded and discuss teh facts, thanks

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

They're gonna use the new and improved Democrat Math....spending won't go up by 100 billion next year, therefore, that will be a 100 billion dollar cut.

Its like Obama saving a million jobs a month.....same new math.

i see...so because the dems had shitty math, its ok for the gop to do so as well....

and now apparently 5% = 14% in the new gop math textbooks....interesting

 

[NOVA]

What would you be willing to wager?

The Democrats still run the government, Senate and Presidency, so I don't really think there will be any cut in spending....the Dems won't rest until they force a hugh increase in income taxes and gut the military.

 

[Phantasmal]

I am all for gutting the military! GO CONGRESS!

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564