Procrastination Session Ends in D.C. - Budget Deal Has Been Reached.

  • 96 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

"WASHINGTON – Perilously close to a government shutdown, congressional leaders reached agreement with the White House late Friday night on a deal to cut tens of billions of dollars in federal spending and avert the closure.

House Speaker John Boehner informed the GOP rank and file of the accord, reached in grueling negotiations over several weeks, an official said.

"We have an agreement," concurred a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Jon Summers.

Because drafting and then passing the broader legislation could take days, congressional leaders raced to approve a stopgap measure to prevent the onset of the first shutdown in 15 years, due to begin at midnight. Officials said it would keep the government in funds through the middle of next week.

Boehner told reporters just before 11 p.m. EDT that the House would continue working.

Republicans said the deal called for $39 billion in spending cuts, a measure that one official said Boehner told his rank and file marked the "largest real-dollar spending cut in American history."

Over a decade, the agreement would cut more than $500 billion from the federal budget, Boehner added, according to a participant in the meeting.

The agreement marked an extraordinary reach across party lines and the first test of a new era of divided government that includes Obama in the White House, control of the Senate by fellow Democrats and a tea party-flavored Republican majority in the House."

Link

_____________________________________

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama congressional leaders reached a last-minute budget deal on Friday, averting a government shutdown, Republican lawmakers said.

With a midnight deadline looming for a government closure, the compromise between Obama's Democrats and opposition Republicans requires lawmakers to approve stopgap funding to keep federal agencies running into next week until the budget agreement can be formally enacted.

Republican Congressman Devin Nunes told Reuters that "the deal" -- a plan for $39 billion in spending cuts -- was presented to House Republicans at a closed-door meeting and that most members would vote for it. There was no immediate comment from the White House or congressional Democrats.

A shutdown would have idled hundreds of thousands of workers, potentially put a crimp on the U.S. economic recovery, and carry political risks for Obama and his fellow Democrats as well as opposition Republicans, who would be seen by voters as failing to make compromises.

Obama's aides and U.S. lawmakers had struggled for a deal over government funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends September 30. But the two sides even had a hard time agreeing on what issues were holding up an agreement.

Democrats said they were at odds over federal funding for birth control. Republicans said spending cuts were the issue.

After narrowing their differences, the House was set to vote later on Friday night on a short-term funding bill to keep the government running until the longer budget plan can be enacted into law sometime next week, the Republican lawmakers said.

Without an agreement, money to operate the federal government for the next six months would run out at midnight on Friday and agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service would begin a partial shutdown.

A phone call between Obama and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, yielded "no resolution," a Republican aide said.

Despite the apparent resolution of the impasse, the bitter political fight raised questions about the ability of Obama and a divided U.S. Congress to deal with bigger issues looming down the road, from raising the federal debt ceiling to reining in budget deficits, as the 2012 presidential election campaign gathers steam.

"They've got to be laughing at us right now" in China, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry. "How terrific that the United States of America can't make a decision."

The leadership of the world's lone remaining superpower has been consumed for days by the budgetary infighting that could bring large swathes of government to a standstill."

Link 2

_____________________________________

Sorry kids, you still have to go to school.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

Avatar image for Radiatedrich91
Radiatedrich91

707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Radiatedrich91
Member since 2009 • 707 Posts

This is like a high schooler partying all weekend and rushing in their homework late Sunday night. Gotta love our government.

Avatar image for Fuhgeddabouditt
Fuhgeddabouditt

5468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Fuhgeddabouditt
Member since 2010 • 5468 Posts
:lol: nice title.
Avatar image for deactivated-5a84f3399aa1c
deactivated-5a84f3399aa1c

6504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#6 deactivated-5a84f3399aa1c
Member since 2005 • 6504 Posts

Huh. I thought Republicans could win the political battle over a shutdown. Guess they thought they'd lose like in the nineties. If this deal happens, I think the GOP comes out behind, since their original plan was 100 billion, then 66 billion, now a paltry 39 billion. We'll see... maybe this just makes everyone look bad.

Avatar image for Maniacc1
Maniacc1

5354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#7 Maniacc1
Member since 2006 • 5354 Posts
I can't believe they did it.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

I can't believe they did it. Maniacc1

Eh, that's how expected the series of events to occur. The Republicans didn't benefit from these shenanigans in the 90s, but of course that didn't avert them from flirting with the deadline in order to pander to their constituencies.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

This is like a high schooler partying all weekend and rushing in their homework late Sunday night. Gotta love our government.

Radiatedrich91

And seven months late at that. Truly inspires me with confidence in our duly elected officials.

Edit: (yes, this is a bump)

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#10 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

Avatar image for Maniacc1
Maniacc1

5354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#11 Maniacc1
Member since 2006 • 5354 Posts

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]I can't believe they did it. coolbeans90

Eh, that's how expected the series of events to occur. The Republicans didn't benefit from these shenanigans in the 90s, but of course that didn't avert them from flirting with the deadline in order to pander to their constituencies.

Earlier on I was seeing the political pandering as well, but I for sure thought they wouldn't reach an agreement today. What's even funnier is that this whole debacle makes both parties seem weak. :P
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

GabuEx

Rather apathetic; the difference in between the proposals was pennies in the grand scheme of things.

Avatar image for Tauruslink
Tauruslink

6586

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Tauruslink
Member since 2005 • 6586 Posts
Wow, good job.
Avatar image for TBoogy
TBoogy

4382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 TBoogy
Member since 2007 • 4382 Posts

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

GabuEx
i think you got it backwards. Looking at the vote right now, the percent of democrats that voted against it is almost twice as high as the republicans that did. Reid didnt sound very pleased to me either. Personally, I didnt like when The Pres said investing in updating our infrastructure would have to be put on hold.
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#15 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

TBoogy

i think you got it backwards. Looking at the vote right now, the percent of democrats that voted against it is almost twice as high as the republicans that did. Reid didnt sound very pleased to me either. Personally, I didnt like when The Pres said investing in updating our infrastructure would have to be put on hold.

I'm talking about Democratic and independent voters. Polls showed that both groups wanted compromise, while Republican voters wanted Republicans to stick their guns.

Avatar image for TBoogy
TBoogy

4382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 TBoogy
Member since 2007 • 4382 Posts

[QUOTE="TBoogy"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

GabuEx

i think you got it backwards. Looking at the vote right now, the percent of democrats that voted against it is almost twice as high as the republicans that did. Reid didnt sound very pleased to me either. Personally, I didnt like when The Pres said investing in updating our infrastructure would have to be put on hold.

I'm talking about Democratic and independent voters. Polls showed that both groups wanted compromise, while Republican voters wanted Republicans to stick their guns.

Oh, ok. Got ya'.
Avatar image for peaceful_anger
peaceful_anger

2568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 peaceful_anger
Member since 2007 • 2568 Posts

Bachmann looked like a total fool today, and I couldn't be happier.

Earlier today Bachmann had said we should not fight this fight and just compromise to avoid a shutdown, and now she is not going to vote for the resolution. Haha!! And she was just on with Bret Baier saying the time to fight was now, and that we didn't fight hard enough, yet earlier today she tweeted "I am ready for a big fight that will change the arc of history. The current fight in Washington is not that fight."

Can you say flip flop? I can't stand that woman!!

Avatar image for THGarrett
THGarrett

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#18 THGarrett
Member since 2003 • 2574 Posts

Bachmann looked like a total fool today, and I couldn't be happier.

Earlier today Bachmann had said we should not fight this fightand just compromise to avoid a shutdown, and now she is not going to vote for the resolution. Haha!! And she was just on with Bret Baier saying the time to fight was now, and that we didn't fight hard enough, yet earlier today she tweeted "I am ready for a big fight that will change the arc of history. The current fight in Washington is not that fight."

Can you say flip flop? I can't stand that woman!!

peaceful_anger

Can't say I'm surprised. It's not the first time she's done it, and certainly won't be the last.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#19 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
At least I'll be getting paid for sure now.
Avatar image for needled24-7
needled24-7

15902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 needled24-7
Member since 2007 • 15902 Posts

sounds like the government is one big clusterf***.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

Democrats and independents got what they wanted; I'm curious what Republicans think of this though.

GabuEx
Its a huge loss for the Tea Party.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

good to know Boehner has backed off on his resolve to never compromise also I'm glad they failed to defund planned parenthood because that would be just ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYSltbiu8U&feature=related

this is definitely good news for the country in general.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

DroidPhysX

Right. Because Obama's budget actually decreased it. :roll:

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

airshocker

Right. Because Obama's budget actually decreased it. :roll:

Never said it will. But Ryan's budget screws senior citizens. Gives trillions to the healthcare industry and give billions to the wealthiest americans + corporations.

Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts
I'd like to know exactly how defunding PP will create jobs. Oh, right, Repubs have no interest in jobs for the Little People. But. . .but they said in 2010!! :o
Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts

This is like a high schooler partying all weekend and rushing in their homework late Sunday night. Gotta love our government.

Radiatedrich91
best analogy for this situation ever. on the bright side im glad even if its only a measily 39 billion cut its a start that some spending cuts were agreed upon. and that the two sides can somewhat perhaps work together a little bit. its a start.
Avatar image for KG86
KG86

6021

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 KG86
Member since 2007 • 6021 Posts

The Free Republic forums have exploded, I love it.

Avatar image for ArchonBasic
ArchonBasic

6420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 ArchonBasic
Member since 2002 • 6420 Posts

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

DroidPhysX

Way to make a completely false assertion. I mean, seriously, do you have a shred of factual information to back up this claim?

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

Archon_basic

Way to make a completely false assertion. I mean, seriously, do you have a shred of factual information to back up this claim?

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt

Enjoy.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I'd like to know exactly how defunding PP will create jobs. Oh, right, Repubs have no interest in jobs for the Little People. But. . .but they said in 2010!! :o

I think what everyone missed them say immediately after "Jobs Jobs Jobs," was, "We're out to destroy the jobs." ............They probably mumbled that last part.
Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Never said it will. But Ryan's budget screws senior citizens. Gives trillions to the healthcare industry and give billions to the wealthiest americans + corporations.

DroidPhysX

Doesn't screw senior citizens. Nothing even affects people 55 and older.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Never said it will. But Ryan's budget screws senior citizens. Gives trillions to the healthcare industry and give billions to the wealthiest americans + corporations.

airshocker

Doesn't screw senior citizens. Nothing even affects people 55 and older.

Epic fail voucher program.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Epic fail voucher program.

DroidPhysX

I don't see any alternatives from your side of the aisle.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Epic fail voucher program.

airshocker

I don't see any alternatives from your side of the aisle.

So its because the GOP has a plan, no matter how crappy it is, it means its better?

Avatar image for moneymatterz
moneymatterz

1139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 moneymatterz
Member since 2004 • 1139 Posts

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I'd like to know exactly how defunding PP will create jobs. Oh, right, Repubs have no interest in jobs for the Little People. But. . .but they said in 2010!! :oSerraph105
I think what everyone missed them say immediately after "Jobs Jobs Jobs," was, "We're out to destroy the jobs." ............They probably mumbled that last part.

Always with the rabid liberal strawman arguments and one-track mind, I see? Classic!

Defunding is about balancing the budget, not job creation. I think it's well-warranted that job creation was put on hold to address the more immediate and catastrophic potential consequences of a governement shutdown.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

So its because the GOP has a plan, no matter how crappy it is, it means its better?

DroidPhysX

No, I just don't think you should be judging something when you don't have a better alternative in mind.

Avatar image for ArchonBasic
ArchonBasic

6420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 ArchonBasic
Member since 2002 • 6420 Posts

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Now, we'll see how Ryans budget actually increases our deficit.

Anyways, they're still clowns

DroidPhysX

Way to make a completely false assertion. I mean, seriously, do you have a shred of factual information to back up this claim?

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt

Enjoy.

That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050, while the alternative fiscal scenario pins debt at 344% of GDP in 2050. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false. Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.

The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.

The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it makes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.

So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO), Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.

CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

The CBO long term budget outlook

Avatar image for moneymatterz
moneymatterz

1139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 moneymatterz
Member since 2004 • 1139 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Epic fail voucher program.

airshocker

I don't see any alternatives from your side of the aisle.

Don't be so short-sighted, airshocker. Didn't Obama's budget proposal triple the national debt? That is the liberal alternative.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Way to make a completely false assertion. I mean, seriously, do you have a shred of factual information to back up this claim?

Archon_basic

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt

Enjoy.

That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050 and 344% of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false.Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.

The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.

The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it mkaes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.

So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO) Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.

CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

The CBO long term budget outlook

So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Epic fail voucher program.

airshocker

I don't see any alternatives from your side of the aisle.

Um, the democrats already signed an alternative into law, that keeps the medicare program around instead of privatizing it and makes health care more affordable for seniors; two things the Paul Ryan voucher program doesn't do.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#41 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

So its because the GOP has a plan, no matter how crappy it is, it means its better?

airshocker

No, I just don't think you should be judging something when you don't have a better alternative in mind.

This is assuming i dont have an alternative right?

Avatar image for ArchonBasic
ArchonBasic

6420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 ArchonBasic
Member since 2002 • 6420 Posts

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/cbo-confirms-paul-ryan-s-budget-slashes-medicare-benefits-while-increasing-debt

Enjoy.

DroidPhysX

That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050 and 344% of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false.Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.

The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.

The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it mkaes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.

So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO) Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.

CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

The CBO long term budget outlook

So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.

No, it decreases the deficit. But by all means, avoid any meaningful factual analysis and keep drinking your kool-aid.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Um, the democrats already signed an alternative into law, that keeps the medicare program around instead of privatizing it and makes health care more affordable for seniors; two things the Paul Ryan voucher program doesn't do. -Sun_Tzu-

And yet does nothing to fix the fact that Medicare costs too much money. Ryan's plan attempts to take a stab at that.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

This is assuming i dont have an alternative right?

DroidPhysX

Then post your alternative.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#45 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050 and 344% of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false.Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.

The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.

The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it mkaes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.

So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO) Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.

CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

The CBO long term budget outlook

Archon_basic

So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.

No, it decreases the deficit. But by all means, avoid any meaningful factual analysis and keep drinking your kool-aid.

Avoid? Here, I'll highlight my point again.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36047 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]I'd like to know exactly how defunding PP will create jobs. Oh, right, Repubs have no interest in jobs for the Little People. But. . .but they said in 2010!! :omoneymatterz

I think what everyone missed them say immediately after "Jobs Jobs Jobs," was, "We're out to destroy the jobs." ............They probably mumbled that last part.

Always with the rabid liberal strawman arguments and one-track mind, I see? Classic!

Defunding is about balancing the budget, not job creation. I think it's well-warranted that job creation was put on hold to address the more immediate and catastrophic potential consequences of a governement shutdown.

clearly jokes are lost on you. Granted it's funny because it's true, but it's still just a joke.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

This is assuming i dont have an alternative right?

airshocker

Then post your alternative.

Why post it, when i could show my alternative:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=g01l55uc

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Um, the democrats already signed an alternative into law, that keeps the medicare program around instead of privatizing it and makes health care more affordable for seniors; two things the Paul Ryan voucher program doesn't do. airshocker

And yet does nothing to fix the fact that Medicare costs too much money. Ryan's plan attempts to take a stab at that.

Not true at all. The reason why medicare costs too much is the same reason as to why private health insurance costs too much - health care costs are growing at an uncontrollable rate. What the democrats did last year was make it much easier for medicare to control it's cost (something that it already does better than private insurers), which includes but is not limited to; streamlining the care seniors receive by having only one provider coordinate it rather than many, the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board that is able to enact cost-controlling reforms to medicare without congressional approval (which guarantees that reform to the medicare program is continuous and ongoing). Paul Ryan does nothing to make health care more affordable - the actual problem that faces medicare. He's just trying to get rid of medicare all together.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#49 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

Although it was embarrasing that the budget fight got to the point that there was nearly a shutdown, I do give the people involved with the deal credit for hashing something out.

Avatar image for moneymatterz
moneymatterz

1139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 moneymatterz
Member since 2004 • 1139 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]That actually led to some interesting research, thanks. The CBO analysis of the Ryan proposal uses three projections: the new Ryan budget, and two previous projections from last year, the extended-baseline scenario and alternative fiscal scenario. Under the extended baseline scenario, debt as a percentage of GDP grows 5% during the next 10 years. Under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt grows by 33% over the same period. Under Ryan's proposal, debt grows by 8%. Of the three, Ryan's budget is the only one that is projected to reduce the deficit over time, eventually bringing the deficit to 10% of GDP in 2050. The extended baseline projection has debt at 90% of GDP in 2050 and 344% of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario. (figures found on page 3, table 1 of the CBO report.) Granted, such long term projections are of diluted value, but under CBO estimates Ryan's budget does decrease national debt over any period except the next 10 years.Unless you were referring to this period specifically in your original post, then your initial statement is false.Given our current yearly budget deficits, I'm really not sure if an overall debt reduction in the next 10 years is desirable, given the necessary economic consequences. In any case, using the CBO data, Ryan's proposal does decrease the federal deficit over any period except for the one ending in 2022.

The article you linked only compares the first 10 years of the extended-baseline scenario to Ryan's proposal, ignoring the alternative fiscal scenario. The extended-baseline scenario makes several unrealistic assumptions: it assumes that most of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 would be allowed to expire, which is unlikely, especially for the lower tax brackets. It also assumes that the alternative minimum tax would be allowed to expand, which will never happen. And it assumes that tax revenue will be allowed to grow well beyond historic averages.

The alternative fiscal scenario, on the other hand, represents a more accurate reflection of current spending and revenue trends. It assumes that revenues will stay close to their historic averages as a percentage of GDP, rather than the more unrealistic estimates of the extended-baseline scenario. It also predicts that some tax cuts will continue, and it mkaes allowance for the AMT. In a nutshell, the alternative fiscal scenario takes into account many changes that are likely to occur, while the extended-baseline scenario is merely a strict estimate of current tax inputs and obligated outlays. Paul Ryan's budget compares very favorably to the alternative fiscal scenario over any period.

So, in summary, Paul Ryan's budget represents a slight increase in the deficit over the first 10 years when compared with the extended-baseline scenario, while the longer term comparisons are favorable. However, when comparing Paul Ryan's budget with the alternative fiscal scenario (which represents a more realistic estimate of future spending and revenue by the CBO) Paul Ryan's budget marks a significant reduction in debt for each projected decade.

CBO analyis of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

The CBO long term budget outlook

Archon_basic

So it does increase the deficit? Yeah, that was my point.

No, it decreases the deficit. But by all means, avoid any meaningful factual analysis and keep drinking your kool-aid.

Did you really expect anything less from the usual suspects of rabid liberalism on this board? Wait for GabuEx to respond. As much as I hate liberalism, that dude's arguments elevate liberalism from its cesspool.

Great analysis, by the way.