Ace of Spades HQ

February 03, 2011

GOP House Offers ~~$100 Billion~~ ~~$60 Billion~~ $32 Billion in Spending Cuts
— Ace

Well. We seem to have had a bad case of mission un-creep, haven't we?

Not enough. I was willing to defend the proposed $60 billion cuts on the theory that 60 billion is ballpark pro-rata 100 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year. (Until March 4, the government's spending is controlled by that Continuing Resolution we passed late in the lame duck.)

But $32 billion? Not enough, not nearly enough. Given that the Senate will reduce any cuts still further, this represents such a massive pre-capitulation that most will wonder if this wasn't the plan all along, and it's not a capitulation at all, but Kabuki.

Try again. $60 billion was the number many of us already generously allowed you to negotiate us down to. $32 billion? It's a nonstarter.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Fuckers.

Posted by: Bosk at February 03, 2011 11:27 AM (pUO5u)

2 It does not matter. It will soon collapse soon enough. The US government won't be able to stop iy or do anything about it. Getting my solar powered H20 creator ready. Emergency food, Guns & Ammo are ready.

Posted by: izoneguy at February 03, 2011 11:29 AM (83mM1)

3 The apparatus that made November 2 happen really needs to be fired up again. No relenting, no rest, please.

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 03, 2011 11:31 AM (aOpxx)

4 Well, I guess we're back to Step One. Fire them all and start over. We need to keep kicking them out until we get some people who actually know how to lead.

Posted by: Harry at February 03, 2011 11:32 AM (uPEnP)

5 Suckers of Cock.

Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 03, 2011 11:32 AM (GTbGH)

6 $32B in the new currency is only, like, $16B in real dollars

Posted by: nine coconuts at February 03, 2011 11:32 AM (DHNp4)

7 With our current fiscal mess, 32 billion is a drop in the ocean.

Posted by: Harry at February 03, 2011 11:32 AM (uPEnP)

8 We are being played by both sides and I'm sick of it.

Posted by: Cooter at February 03, 2011 11:33 AM (BcLJD)

9 A third party is absurd, irrational and self-defeating. But the Republican Party seems determined to create one, and this is one of the reasons why they earn contempt.

Posted by: Tonawanda at February 03, 2011 11:34 AM (bN5ZU)

Gee, Ace ... you're sounding a lot like a man in search of a third party.

Can I get you a cup 'o tea, mate?

Posted by: justspitballin at February 03, 2011 11:34 AM (t+p5A)

11 They're all whores, and this walk-back is another reminder (though one I didn't think would happen less than 90 days from the election)

Posted by: Tom Mathers at February 03, 2011 11:34 AM (UyEtI)

Posted by: nine coconuts at February 03, 2011 11:34 AM (DHNp4)

13 $32 billion? That's the amount that fell behind the cushions of Nancy Pelosi's office couch.

GOP? Try again.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2011 11:34 AM (swuwV)

14 OK folks don't go all eeyore yet, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1st this is a liberal paper. Take everything wth a grain or ton of salt

2nd, we are talking about slashing the "continuing resolution" for what amounts to last year's budget which is more than half spent already so you cant cut as much of it out. It already gone.

Lastly, we will know what they are really going to do when they get around to writing THEIR first budget.

Posted by: Vic at February 03, 2011 11:35 AM (M9Ie6)

15 The Egyptian riots are making it just impossible to find any budget cuts.

Posted by: Jerry Brown at February 03, 2011 11:35 AM (IhQuA)

16 God fucking damnit; these cocksuckers still don't get it.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 03, 2011 11:35 AM (eh+ki)

What part of quit spending money do these people not understand?

Posted by: Harry at February 03, 2011 11:35 AM (uPEnP)

18 What the hell are we supposed to do? The only thing that will change this will be the whole system burning down, and I fear that's where we are heading. I don't mean to be a conspiracy guy, but why wouldn't the elites want the system to collapse only to replace it with their own revolutionary government?

Posted by: Alex #11 at February 03, 2011 11:36 AM (LcJmR)

19 That's only $1B for every one of Lindsay Graham's brilliant white capped teeth.

Posted by: nine coconuts at February 03, 2011 11:36 AM (DHNp4)

20 Cuts from what baseline? 2010's?

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:36 AM (uFokq)

21 $32 billion? Damn... there goes one of next year's vacations.

Posted by: B.O. Bama at February 03, 2011 11:37 AM (wAQA5)

22 These people are fucking useless. The Republicans jump when the Democrats tell them to jump.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:37 AM (uFokq)

Is is possible for elected officials to fix this debt problem?

Can they even if they wanted to?

It just seems like this thing is rolling down the hill, getting larger and larger, to the point of being unstoppable.

they've promised too much to too many people.

Posted by: Ben at February 03, 2011 11:37 AM (wuv1c)

24 You know what's nice, though? The bipartisanship displayed during the SOTU address.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:38 AM (uFokq)

25 Paul Ryan tweeted 3 hours ago that its 74 billion, and they're just getting started.

Posted by: Matticus Finch at February 03, 2011 11:38 AM (0Mr4u)

26 O/T: wow the people in pittsburgh are really thin skinned. This little know tart in pittsburgh is really trying to embarass hannity. I don't like hannity but man, he shouldn't give her a second of his time, she' s a little player in a tiny tiny little market.

Posted by: curious at February 03, 2011 11:38 AM (p302b)

27 so when's the next raise for Congress?

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:38 AM (uFokq)

28 Ace, here's the problem, They Don't Care. You actually thought they were going to do something about a problem that they really can do nothing about. The debt is beyond fixing at this point. All they're doing now is determining on who's watch the collapse actually happens.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 11:39 AM (ml4hB)

29 Even I know that's not enough money to be a big f---ing deal.

Posted by: Joey Biden at February 03, 2011 11:39 AM (YZISw)

30 The GOP doesn't get it. There really is nothing more to be said.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 03, 2011 11:39 AM (TpXEI)

31 wow, some people are only going to be in congress two years if this is how things are going.

Posted by: curious at February 03, 2011 11:39 AM (p302b)

32 This was from Paul Ryan:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (WI-01) today announced spending limits for the remainder of the current fiscal year, a significant step forward to cut government spending and help spur economic growth and job creation. The measure will bring non-security discretionary spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, as House Republicans called for in their Pledge to America. For the remainder of the current fiscal year, the measure will save $74 billion relative to President ObamaÂ’s budget request.

Read the whole thing (it's not long).

I think we should be patient and give Ryan a chance to explain the rationale behind their plan.

Posted by: Y-not is waging a losing battle against food-borne pathogens at February 03, 2011 11:39 AM (pW2o8)

33 I don't actually care whether it is from the continuing resolution or not, hell, I thought the $100 B was too little.

So $32 billion is like 8 days of govt spending.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 03, 2011 11:40 AM (xdHzq)

34 meanwhile... we're still spending 00's of millions of $$ on "greening" federal buildings.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:40 AM (uFokq)

35 Aaaaand, right on schedule:
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on Ryan's panel, said the cuts would hurt the economy and put more people out of work.

Posted by: pep at February 03, 2011 11:40 AM (P18+/)

36 #14 Vic, I am with you. If I had a dollar for every time conservatives went off on one of their people based on a New York Times article, I would be a wealthy woman.

And if I had a dollar for every time it turned out to be twisted or a downright lie, I could retire to a tropical island.

When stuff like this comes up, the very first question should be WHO is reporting this? What are their sources? Are they named, or anonymous?

I am not going to get in a snit until I see some actual numbers from Ryan.

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 03, 2011 11:41 AM (Fo83G)

37 Anything less than $500B in cuts is a joke.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:41 AM (uFokq)

38 It's painfully obvious that the Republican Party is still not serious about cutting spending and aren't even thinking about reducing the size of government.

I know that a third party isn't really an effective option but it's B.S. like this that makes me really, really wish I had somebody else to vote for.

I'm so sick and tired of crap sandwiches the GOP keeps serving.

Posted by: GhostShip at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (kWn29)

39 14 OK folks don't go all eeyore yet, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1st this is a liberal paper. Take everything wth a grain or ton of salt

2nd, we are talking about slashing the "continuing resolution" for what amounts to last year's budget which is more than half spent already so you cant cut as much of it out. It already gone.

Lastly, we will know what they are really going to do when they get around to writing THEIR first budget.

My understanding is that the number is indeed $74 billion less than Obama's request. However, the Republican Study Committee wants the whole $100 billion, which the ongoing argument between them and the leadership is over pro-rating. Regardless, the leadership is allowing amendments for deeper spending cuts to be brought to the floor.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (sZ+lP)

All of this negotiating spending cuts is going on in state legislatures around the country now as well. As someone on a state list I'm on put it "with all the things the legislature keeps saying they'll retain the funding for, I'm curious what it is exactly that they are going to cut."

By the way, the charts in the Jager article linked in the sidebar are scary and I think the 3rd one that shows how much raw materials have gone up in a year (cotton is up 152%!!!) should be blasted everywhere.

Posted by: ParanoidThursdayInSeattle at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (RZ8pf)

41 Does Ryan mean $1.5 trillion minus $.074 trillion? Is that what he means?

Posted by: Cooter at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (BcLJD)

42 They're not called The Stupid Party without reason.

Posted by: ExurbanKevin at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (toqoX)

$32B... of a $1.5 Trillion DEFICIT... and $3.69 Trillion in spending...

Saving what.... takes off his shoes so he can count.... less than 1/10 of 1%?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2011 11:42 AM (AdK6a)

44 Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 03:41 PM (uFokq)

yep and uncle ben said that 45% of the unemployed have been unemployed for more than 6 months and this is a huge concern.

Posted by: curious at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (p302b)

45 A 10% cut across the board -- every department, every salary, every budget, every thing.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (uFokq)

46 Egyptian Democracy doesn't come cheap.

Posted by: Fritz at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (GwPRU)

47 Call me impetuous, but I think Ryan understands the stakes here, and isn't going to accept token budget cuts. If other Repubs balk, he has enough standing at this point to make life very unpleasant for them.

Posted by: pep at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (P18+/)

48 Vic, I am with you. If I had a dollar for every time conservatives went off on one of their people based on a New York Times article, I would be a wealthy woman.

Wait, this info is from the New York Times?

Well geez, then it's not reliable at all.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (TpXEI)

49 So $32 billion is like 8 days of govt spending.

Worse, it's 8 days of government borrowing, less than a week of spending.

1.5T deficiet / 365 = 4.1B per day

Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 03, 2011 11:43 AM (GTbGH)

50 I sort of feel like "we is bein played"

Posted by: curious at February 03, 2011 11:44 AM (p302b)

51 Okay, according to the story the $32 billion is coming out of the continuing resolution and is smaller because the bastards keep spending. Still...there's a "compromise" at work here and it would be nice to know what it is.

Posted by: Just call me Andi at February 03, 2011 11:44 AM (RD7QR)

52 Look, the bottom line is there is no going back at this point. They're freaking talking about QE3 for Gods sake. We pulled money out of a hat for QE2, where the hell are they going to get the money for this next fucking round of infusion

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 11:44 AM (ml4hB)

53 Why would hannity play this yelling imam on his radio show. I avoided watching the guy last night, and now I have to turn hannity off again now.

Posted by: curious at February 03, 2011 11:45 AM (p302b)

54 How do we go about making the checks bounce? Sometimes that's the only way to stop someone from spending what they DON'T. FUCKING. HAVE.

Posted by: tcn at February 03, 2011 11:45 AM (DjPot)

55 So $32 billion is like 8 days of govt spending.

For 2009 the daily govt spending was just under $11 billion so it's more like just 3 days.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 03, 2011 11:45 AM (tf9Ne)

56 Why do we even have an EPA? Shutdown all non-essential departments until this emergency is over.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:45 AM (uFokq)

57 25 Paul Ryan tweeted 3 hours ago that its 74 billion, and they're just getting started.

It's $74 billion less than Obama's 2011 budget request:

"Aides said Thursday that the number is smaller because nearly half of the fiscal year is already over and the government is committing money at a faster rate in anticipation of coming cuts. They also argued their proposed cuts would reduce spending to 2008 levels for the final seven months of the fiscal year."

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 11:45 AM (sZ+lP)

58 where the hell are they going to get the money for this next fucking round of infusion

Oh shit.

Posted by: nostradamus' 401k at February 03, 2011 11:46 AM (GTbGH)

59 Maybe these fucks should listen to the Rand Paul speech he gave on the floor about compromise. NO COMPROMISE !!!!! What did you guys not understand by this past election ???!!!

Posted by: Billy Jack at February 03, 2011 11:46 AM (GkYyh)

Hmmm.... only a couple more months until April 15th...

TEA Party anyone?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2011 11:46 AM (AdK6a)

The voting citizens who put the new crop of republicans in congress need to keep the pressure on to spend less/tax less. Staying informed and keeping in touch with your elected officials to let them know you are interested in budgetary matters is important.

The way to go third party is not to go third party. The better way to success is to leave the rinos behind as we complete the takeover of the republican party. It's a perfectly good party that needs some new members and a little light housekeeping.

Rinos is a relative term. Scott Brown is the best you can expect in a bright blue state like MA. Reality bites but there you have it. But there is no excuse for Graham in SC. The more conservative states are going to have to step up and drag the blue states back to sanity.

Posted by: Boots at February 03, 2011 11:47 AM (neKzn)

62 Try again. $60 billion was the number many of us already generously allowed you to negotiate us down to. $32 billion? It's a nonstarter.

Okay, yes but didn't you hear about the great CAP Bill we came up with?
It'll been fine...really.

Posted by: Congress at February 03, 2011 11:47 AM (Q1lie)

63 58 where the hell are they going to get the money for this next fucking round of infusion

Oh shit.

Posted by: nostradamus' 401k at February 03, 2011 03:46 PM (GTbGH)

aw, relax, we have plenty of paper and ink...

Posted by: , at February 03, 2011 11:47 AM (p302b)

64 Spot on nostradamus. Gird your loins indeed.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 11:48 AM (ml4hB)

65 47 Call me impetuous, but I think Ryan understands the stakes here, and isn't going to accept token budget cuts. If other Repubs balk, he has enough standing at this point to make life very unpleasant for them.

He wants $5 trillion-worth of cuts over 10 years for the next budget. That's not including the numbers Cantor is toying-with RE raising the debt ceiling. They are going to use the cuts as leverage.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 11:48 AM (sZ+lP)

66 No its from The Hill, but that is really not much different from the NYT.

Posted by: Vic at February 03, 2011 11:48 AM (M9Ie6)

67 59 Maybe these fucks should listen to the Rand Paul speech he gave on the floor about compromise. NO COMPROMISE !!!!! What did you guys not understand by this past election ???!!!

Posted by: Billy Jack at February 03, 2011 03:46 PM (GkYyh)

What they don't get, is that it all depends on your starting negotiating position...

Repubs should be the party of almost NO spending... and start from there...

But when your position is to hold spending to where it is, then any compormise becomes MORE spending....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2011 11:48 AM (AdK6a)

68 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 03:48 PM (sZ+lP)

It's a trojan horse, in ten years it won't matter, things need to be done now, right now and they are all playing chess.

Posted by: , at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (p302b)

The sad part--pathetic really--is they haven't even started negotiating with the socialists yet! The GOP is negotiating with itself, and losing! How the heck do you do that!

37b, 60b, 75b, what's the diff? Its all fail. The GOP just is not up to the job.

Rand's Paul's proposal of $500b for this year alone probably is not enough, as Ace and others remind us, but at least it is a serious proposal.

Posted by: some dope at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (K/USr)

70 What if, instead of $32B, it was back to $60B. Or $100B. Would that be enough? Of course not.

The cuts need to be approaching draconian which is exactly what it is guaranteed to be if this Titanic of a country is to survive Iceberg Reality. Those $100B deckchairs will be in the drink with everything else if these muttonheads don't start cutting weight and patching holes.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (swuwV)

does anyone remember when a billion dollars was a lot of money?

Posted by: Ben at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (wuv1c)

72 The Obama administration did not get its desired budget in the current continuing resolution that is funding the government through fiscal year 2011.

If the current continuing resolution is extended, the amount of money used to fund the government for fiscal year 2011 is $1.087 trillion. The House GOP proposed budget is for $1.055 trillion dollars. $1.087 minus $1.055 equals $32 billion.

Ryan has responded that the House GOP will find $74 billion in discretionary savings "relative to President Obama's budget request." But the problem with that is that Obama's request is not the actual budget.

The fight over the continuing resolution will happen in the House next week. It is unlikely that the GOP will be able to enact the $32 billion dollars in savings by March 4, as any budget bill must pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

There will most likely be more temporary continuing resolutions to keep the government funded and operating. Then the House GOP will have to strike some sort of compromise with the Democratic Senate in order to pass through the savings they desire.

MSNBC

Well, at least it looks like they found money for smoke and mirrors...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (L8y7Q)

73 Maybe there is something about this 2012 stuff we don't know about? Because why the hell they would do this is beyond me.

Posted by: Mr Pink at February 03, 2011 11:49 AM (e+nfw)

aw, relax, we have plenty of paper and ink...

Posted by: , at February 03, 2011 03:47 PM (p302b)

We don't even need paper and ink.... its all just Data now... and electrons are Free..

Posted by: Fed Res Bank at February 03, 2011 11:50 AM (AdK6a)

75 Yes......Professional politicians will be the death of the United States of America as it was founded.

Posted by: Sponge © at February 03, 2011 11:51 AM (UK9cE)

76 WTF? This is beer money!

Cut a few bases from Europe and let the Euroweenies defend themselves. Cut any of the hundreds of Pentagon boondoggles currently on the drawing board. Then cut the 12 intelligence agencies doing the exact same thing as the other ones, only each headed under a separate department vying for spy dollars.

Then cut 10% of the federal workforce. They sit on their freakin' asses all day! Jeeebus!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 03, 2011 11:51 AM (f9c2L)

77 If they are front loading the government, it's going to negate anything the republicans want to do and they probably won't even present a budget again saying they don't have time to argue with the republicans. I feel bad for Ryan, he and his committee are a moot point.

Posted by: , at February 03, 2011 11:51 AM (p302b)

78 Back up to $100B.

Posted by: motionview at February 03, 2011 11:53 AM (zRbkQ)

79 Well, at least it looks like they found money for smoke and mirrors...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 03, 2011 03:49 PM (L8y7Q)

And they leave out this is DISCRETIONARY spending... not total Government outlays...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2011 11:53 AM (AdK6a)

80 and this is why we'll have Ross fucking Perot 3.0 in 2012...

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 11:54 AM (uFokq)

81 and people wonder why Michelle Bachmann is out there with her own SOTU address. $32 billion is chump change.

Posted by: exceller at February 03, 2011 11:54 AM (jx2Td)

82 Republican aides argued that their spending plan meets the spirit of the $100 billion promise because, if it passes, the rate of spending for the balance of the 2011 fiscal year would be reduced to 2008 levels. On an annualized basis, the cuts would amount to about a 20 percent reduction in spending. Aides called that that approach the Â“fairest way, without changing baselines or changing goals.Â”

NatJournal

Can't change baselines, can't change goals. Wouldn't be prudent.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 03, 2011 11:54 AM (L8y7Q)

83 Five year budgets, ten year budges ... it really is moot. They're talking about a trillion dollar budget with deficits going on forever. You guys really think there is a solution to this? Really? We seriously need Hillary's reset button at this point, because it's pretty much all over except the crying.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 11:55 AM (ml4hB)

84 Thanks, 52%'ers. Fuck you very much.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 03, 2011 11:56 AM (b6qrg)

85 This is the PDF for FY2011 Discretionary Spending Allocation for the Appropriations Committee. A few lines:

"Pursuant to House Rules H.Res. 5 and spending reduction resolution H.Res. 38, the Budget Committee Chairman will file an allocation to set 2011 discretionary budget authority (BA) at $1,055 billion, which will produce savings of $74 billion compared to the PresidentÂ’s request."

"Non-security discretionary spending is assumed to be $420 billion to bring this category of spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout 2008 levels for the last seven months of this year. This will produce BA savings of $58 billion compared to the PresidentÂ’s request."

"Security spending is assumed to be $635 billion, an increase of $8 billion relative to the 2010 level. Security agencies have been operating under a continuing resolution that is maintaining spending at last yearÂ’s level for the first five months of this year. The assumption is $16 billion below the PresidentÂ’s request for security spending."

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 11:57 AM (sZ+lP)

86 The fact that they want to "satisfy" the "spirit" of a promise, that they are manipulating language, makes them no better than the best language manipulators on the planet, the dems, in fact, it may make them far worse and they promised and failed to deliver.

Posted by: , at February 03, 2011 11:57 AM (p302b)

The details aren't terribly clear, but the Thugs had better update their little black book in blood.

If this $32 Billion is to come off this month's outlays and fails Senate introduction there needs to be a cost to the Senate at reconciliation following March 4 on remainder of year's funding.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 03, 2011 11:58 AM (/g2vP)

88 I don't like pissing in anybody's fucking Wheaties, and I'd love to have a solution to the problem, but there isn't one. Seriously. We've run off the cliff and we're free falling at this point. We're just arguing on the time and date the car hits the bottom.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 12:00 PM (ml4hB)

89 So? $32 billion still works out to about $15,000 for every innocent Iraqi and Afghan that Bush murdered while you teabaggers cheered him on.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 03, 2011 12:00 PM (xmuv/)

90 Wait, this info is from the New York Times?

Well geez, then it's not reliable at all.

Wouldn't the NYT be more inclined to overstate GOP plans to cut so as to scare its base?

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 03, 2011 12:01 PM (aOpxx)

91 Lose the Future.

Posted by: The GOP at February 03, 2011 12:01 PM (tQs/i)

92 Freakin' hire Andrew Cuomo already.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 03, 2011 12:01 PM (QQ01n)

93 You guys really think there is a solution to this?

Yep, but they won't do it, so then no.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 03, 2011 12:05 PM (xdHzq)

As an American, when I turn on the *news* and see revolution in Egypt, I get wishful...

Like when you buy a lottery ticket and think "Maybe....just maybe...."

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at February 03, 2011 12:06 PM (GKQDR)

95 Congress is slated to be home the week of Feb. 20th for its PresidentsÂ’ Day recess, meaning [Senate Budget Chair] Inouye canÂ’t take up the House bill until a few days before Mar. 4. Â“Even if we worked round the clock, I donÂ’t think we could do it,Â” he told POLITICO.

Odd how everyone on the Hill was happy to work weekends and holidays to get the TARP and the like passed, but when it comes to budget cuts, both parties suddenly need their time off.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 03, 2011 12:07 PM (L8y7Q)

96 I only wish there was an Opt Out button.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 12:08 PM (ml4hB)

97 So how are they going to get the Senate to sign-off on this? because I'm thinking the Senate is going to whittle this down even more.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 12:09 PM (sZ+lP)

98 When Clinton was president, America was actually making a profit while you wingnuts were obsessing over him getting a beejer.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 03, 2011 12:11 PM (hZOPt)

99 Don't worry... after the Senate and everyone else is done the $32 billion in cuts will only be a $23 billion increase in expenditures.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 03, 2011 12:12 PM (QQ01n)

100 There will most likely be more temporary continuing resolutions to keep the government funded and operating.

Sure they can stop if it they grow the balls. The House can simply refuse to go along and fund NOTHING.

Posted by: Vic at February 03, 2011 12:14 PM (M9Ie6)

101 96 I only wish there was an Opt Out button.

Posted by: mastour at February 03, 2011 04:08 PM (ml4hB)

There is....emmigration. Easier if you're single with no kids, like me. Canadian and American citizenship and both are becoming crapholes.

And because the US government will still tax me when I'm living in another country and I can't tell how punitive they'll be in the future, I've looked into renouncing citizenship. And if I acheive the "______ Dream", I don't want the US government taking any money away from my heirs.

Like I said above...I look at Egypt and think *if only*...

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at February 03, 2011 12:17 PM (GKQDR)

102 Rush always says there is a distinct difference between the parties. Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing it. Drop the GOP and elect Tea Party candidates from here on out. Even the "good" GOP folks. Dump 'em. Dump 'em all!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 03, 2011 12:18 PM (zgZzy)

103 The next fiscal year starts in September? Is the correct?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 12:20 PM (sZ+lP)

104 ed.-- Is that correct?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 12:20 PM (sZ+lP)

105

Now, the question...

Is there any noise about TEA Party protests this April 15th?

Because I'm not hearing anything here in Denver...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2011 12:21 PM (AdK6a)

106 I have very little patience with these people anymore. Even someone like Ryan. If nothing gets done in two years, I'm all for throwing him out, too. Sorry, but we need action a.s.a.p.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 03, 2011 12:22 PM (zgZzy)

107 Good luck, Canadian Infidel. Zero changed the rules. Renunciation now requires three separate interviews spaced over two years. Not to mention the 50% exit tax on net worth. And check oot the new currency controls in the HIRE Act. It's not like the place wasn't becoming a prison before, but this motherfucker is adding concertina wire, guard dogs and minefields.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 03, 2011 12:32 PM (hZOPt)

108 SNAFU Wash-rinse-repeat

Posted by: Jeff in OK at February 03, 2011 12:35 PM (HgwOi)

109

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 03, 2011 04:32 PM (hZOPt)

Thanks. I've been out of the US for a few years. I already know I'll never see the Social Security. I'm starting out again so the exit tax won't affect me. I've read about having to file tax returns though for 10 years after giving up citizenship, which, I don't see any reason to do that if I've given up citizenship. It's continued punitive actions like that which make the idea of giving up US citizenship easier.

Canadian citizenship, although all of my primary family is here, will be the easiest to give up once I get citizenship in my new country. Being raised partly in the Trudeau era, I feel no particular loyalty to the country as it is today. The joys of a liberal education.

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at February 03, 2011 12:41 PM (GKQDR)

110

Alright re-reading the clear as mud Hill reporting, it does seem a $74 billion reduction of the budget extension currently in place.

No that is not adequate as an opening negotiation with the Senate. Reconciliation will bridge the gap, but then has to be passed by both houses.

The Thugs are asking to sleep with fishes.

Posted by: gary gulrud at February 03, 2011 12:41 PM (/g2vP)

111 Yeah, filing returns after I'm gone. How about you kiss me between the pockets, bitches?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 03, 2011 12:47 PM (hZOPt)

112 I say they should shut-down the govt after Reid refuses this offer, which you know he will.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 12:50 PM (sZ+lP)

113 Rush always says there is a distinct difference between the parties. Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing it.

The Democrats channel half the electorate's "Shit ain't right!" urges into to anti-Republican votes by lying about what Republicans will do. The Republicans channel half the electorate's "Shit ain't right!" urges into anti-Democrat votes by lying about what Republicans will do.

Distinct.

Posted by: oblig. at February 03, 2011 12:52 PM (xvZW9)

114 From NASDAQ: They said that the initial $100 billion goal wouldn't be met in the current fiscal year because fiscal 2011 began on Oct. 1, and will be five months old by the time the new spending framework is put in place. Republican leaders say that their goal is now to meet that target by the end of December.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 01:02 PM (sZ+lP)

115 Speechless.

Posted by: Barbarian at February 03, 2011 01:06 PM (EL+OC)

116 Okay, so the next budget is going to be written this spring, so that's where we shall see about how serious they really are. Also, The WSJ: Washington Wires has a predictable story in which Harry Reid says this measure is "unworkable". Make them take it all or shut 'er down!

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 01:19 PM (sZ+lP)

117 A 10% cut across the board -- every department, every salary, every budget, every thing.

Posted by: soothsayer deeds done dirt cheap at February 03, 2011 03:43 PM (uFokq)

Yup, I've called for the 10% Solution for some time. It's easy to spell out. Nobody gets a pass, everybody has skin in the game and it's 100% verifiable. I'd add cut 10% of the federal workforce in there as well.

54 How do we go about making the checks bounce? Sometimes that's the only way to stop someone from spending what they DON'T. FUCKING. HAVE.

Posted by: tcn at February 03, 2011 03:45 PM (DjPot)

Raised this point yesterday. How many tax protesters does it take to shut down the system? How many in jail and court to overcapacity, 'till there's no more room? How about you being one of them after they've taken your paycheck, your house and your car? That's the stakes, how many are in?

Posted by: Jimmuy at February 03, 2011 01:19 PM (8RfPc)

118 It's the 76 billion figure, according to Fox. Don't know where The Hill got their info, but it's best to check most of these media outlets because they are in the habit of disinformation regarding Republicans/

Posted by: Miss Marple at February 03, 2011 02:39 PM (Fo83G)

119 This measure is only for part of the year. Also, heard confirmation that the next budget is due in April or May. Let's see what they do then.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 03, 2011 03:32 PM (sZ+lP)

120

So, all the people who marginalized Demint and Bachmann, there you go. You sided with the Democrats on calling them CRAAAAAZY and so comes to nut-cutting time, the Republicans go in for half (well, 53%) a loaf.

Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2011 03:40 PM (aU7Ox)

121 Didn't really check out the story in full before writing this post, huh, Ace? Your headline figure is wrong!

Posted by: Steph at February 03, 2011 03:42 PM (AkdC5)

122

Paul Ryan clarified, but they aren't serious until they start ELIMINATING agencies.

Shutdown the EPA and destroy or sell their facilities. It takes a lot longer than 4 years to put something like the EPA together. If the Demoncrats retake power and try to set it up, you tear it back down.

I'm sick that Bush and the Republicans had 8 years to try and abolish these agencies and didn't even try.

Posted by: blindside at February 03, 2011 06:06 PM (X1Y8q)

123

Cut their pork barrel spending by several billion pasaquas and quit raising the taxes

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 03, 2011 06:07 PM (vA9ld)

124

Shutdown all non-essential departments. until this emergency is over.

Starting with the Dept of Ed

Posted by: hillbillygirl at February 03, 2011 07:10 PM (c66df)

125 We need a big wall, seriously, a really big wall and they need to be scared to death about winding up in front of it. How else are they going to be afraid enough to stop spending OUR money, not THEIR money OUR money!

Posted by: Rob in Katy at February 03, 2011 07:24 PM (PiTBB)

126 HELL - I COULD CUT 32B BY JUST CUTTING HALF OF THE SCREWBALL CZARS AND STAFFS - WHAT THE HELL DO THEY DO ANYWAY?

Posted by: BUDGETSHRINKER at February 04, 2011 12:00 AM (GkYyh)

127 Evict the UN from america and abolish the EPA,DEPT of ENERGY,HOMELAND SECURITY, get us out of NATO, repeal NAFTA, and all that and more

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 04, 2011 08:36 AM (vA9ld)

128 At least if we bring in $32B, and Dems won't even go for that much, we can paint the dems as more extremist than if they rejected $60B in cuts. As long as we get the Dems on record rejecting cuts that's a good step.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 05, 2011 07:31 PM (0pNBF)

129 altın Ã§ilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı

Posted by: shawn at February 09, 2011 11:33 AM (wjTOH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

136kb generated in CPU 0.1995, elapsed 0.4128 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3538 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.