Jul 31 2011

Real Cuts Tuesday, Or Fantasy Cuts In the Future?

Published by at 11:39 pm under All General Discussions

The morons in DC are still not getting it. We have been given a choice – real cuts Tuesday or fantasy cuts 10 years in the future, after trillion more in generational debt. An epic fail.

The ridiculous plan proposed this weekend has a series of flaws. First and foremost, there are only about $900 million in cuts over ten years while we blow $1.5 trillion a year in runaway spending. All these fools could muster is 10% cuts on deficits, which means 90% of the deficit is still there driving us into bankruptcy.

Second, this pathetic commission is against the US Constitution. The HOUSE has to debate and pass spending bills. The SENATE has to debate and pass spending bills. This idiotic commission of 12 congress-critters to do what no one has been able to do in 40 years is naive. But it also gags the Tea Party and Libertarian freshmen sent to DC to fix the problem. It is a coup d’etat violating our representative government. It is the end of America.

So we either have these pretend future cuts (which don’t even hit until 2013) while we immediately raise the borrowing and dig a deeper hole for our children.

OR ….

We kill this silliness and force DC to live within its means this week. Pretend cuts in ten years or real cuts now? The choice is obvious.

Furthermore, the crap from the GOP elites is nauseating. Lindsey Graham admitted we could go into debt another $4-7 trillion dollars with this deal, but what we got was a new debate topic? Is he serious>

Pullleeaase. I ain’t paying those morons in DC $4-7 trillion more in debt to have the right to challenge their out of control spending.

I can get focus on the debate on spending this week – by hitting the debt limit and forcing all those hard decisions now that everyone wants to kick down the street until Thanksgiving. Fuggedaboudit. No more delaying tactics, no more fantasy promises 10 years from now.

Kill the bill, hit the debt ceiling and when the fat cats on Wall Street are screaming ‘uncle’ we make a deal on more rational – but immediate – cuts. If not now – never …

31 responses so far

31 Responses to “Real Cuts Tuesday, Or Fantasy Cuts In the Future?”

  1. suhrmesa says:


    A couple of problems….

    – Dems control 2/3 of the levers of power
    – Dems DNA prevent cutting anything but defense
    – 1 of 3 levers prevents us from holding Dems accountable

    Therefore, the only way to make progress is to hold the lever of accountability. Taking the Senate and WH in 2012 gives the power back to the people. We will then hold Republicans accountable for getting our fiscal house in order. Until then, it won’t happen.

    Our system is designed to prevent quick and huge change… for good or for bad.

  2. theghost says:

    AJ …

    It may be cathartic to rail against the “Wall Street Fat Cats” but I’ve worked there since 1985 and 99% of them are highly intelligent men and women who spend 8-10-12 hours a day studying data and wargaming possible scenarios, fat cats they are not.
    Guess what, they’ll never cry uncle, they’ll be one step ahead of this as they are right now.
    Don’t you wonder why the bond markets have not yet shown any reaction to this supposed “crisis” ? The best thing for the markets may very well be no agreement. I’d bet there is a better than 50/50 chance the market will rally over the next week if no deal is reached by Tuesday.
    We need to fix entitlements, right now. The fastest way to do so would be with no agreement on Tuesday. America is ready for its medicine if DC can be forced to swallow it ….

  3. crosspatch says:

    I agree that the reason there was no panic was maybe the markets decided that reducing government spending would actually be a good thing.

    The closer I look at this deal the more I believe that maybe Obama has given up in 2012. He might be going through the motions, but something I can’t quite put my finger on says his heart really isn’t in it anymore.

  4. CatoRenasci says:

    This is another phony deal: cuts in the amounts of increase in the outyears when who knows who’ll be in charge in exchange for a debt increase today.

    Another example of the Democrats as Wimpy: “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today.”

    The Republican Party leadership just doesn’t get it. A fair number of Republicans do, but they don’t run the party. Time to bail on them.

    The Democrats probably get it more than the Republicans, but, and this is critical, they are simply unwilling to cut spending because their power depends on making more and more people dependent on government, whether through the dole or crony capitalism.

    The only way the debt limit should increase is in exchange for passage (not a vote) of a balanced budget amendment and spending cuts in 2011-2012 that represent cuts from the last passed budget 2009-2010 (which is bad enough).

    Baseline budgeting must be eliminated: in each year, the baseline should be the lower of the previous year’s budget or the previous year’s actual spending.

    In the ’70s, there was a fad for zero-based budgeting. It became silly, but we should do a zero-based budget for the federal government now, and perhaps before every other presidential election cycle, so the budget will be an issue in the election.

  5. Jinny says:

    I don’t like it. The reduction will come from the military and Medicare and the Bush tax cuts will be no more. This is victory?

    A committee of handpicked people to make decisions that we elect OUR Representatives and Senators to make? Why do we need them then.

    It doesn’t feel like victory to me. Our income is from military retirement and social security. I told my senators and congressman, don’t cave, even if they withhold the money, we’ll make it until the liberals give in. Let Obama own it.

    I hope it FAILS! If not now, when will there ever be another opportunity.

  6. WWS says:

    There were never going to be real cuts now, this was about positioning for 2012. It feels rather odd for me to be in the position of the one who thinks this deal is about the best we could have gotten, but I find that I am.

    It’s about making a deal – politically, this a good deal to take. The parties went head to head, and Obama and Reid blinked on the important thing – no new tax increases.

    as far as military cuts go – so go ahead and force Obama to surrender to Khadaffy, that war’s lost already. Let him run on THAT record in 2012!

  7. lurker9876 says:

    WWS, It is a bad bill but I agree with you. Given the fact that Obama is in the WH and the Democrats control the Senate, we’re given two choices: this deal or nothing.

    I predicted that no matter what deal they finally come up with, these deals will have no effect to the economy and will not help Obama at all.

    I think this process has damaged Obama and his odds for re-election. Obama was hoping that this will not be part of his campaign but this has gotten so much attention that I think he’s wrong.

    We now know Obama’s record. The more Obama says 2013, we will do more bad things, the more it will harm his chances. He wants tax hikes to begin with, shutdown oil industry entirely, push for Cap n Trade, etc.

    And worst of all…nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice.

    Remember that ObamaCare may come before SCOTUS in 2013, if not next year!

    As for the default and military cuts, go ahead, too. The economy is so bad already….how much worse can it get?

    I see this morning that HSBC is laying off 30,000 and closing half of its US banks…Is it because of Dodd-Frank bill?

  8. lurker9876 says:

    I also think that what John Boehner and the House Reps did was to demonstrate what they will do in 2013 for us. Between now and then are fake spending cuts. 2013? They better demonstrate to us REAL spending cuts.

    This is the first step to fiscal sanity if these guys still hold onto the fiscal principles.

    I think the Republicans are already emerging as the biggest winner.

  9. WWS says:

    one thing that makes me think this deal is acceptable is that the Balanced Budget Amendment is a red herring. A lot of people talk about amending the Constitution, and few realize how hard it really is to do.

    First, it takes a 2/3 vote in EACH House of Congress, not a majority. But that just starts the process! After that, you must have 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it before it can be passed. That’s the hard part.

    That’s 37 State Legislatures. These are the rocks that the ERA went aground on. All you need is 14 State Legislatures who don’t like the idea, and it’s dead. California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island – There’s 5 guaranteed against already. I think I could find 10 more.

    And that’s not the only problem – for example, once the current special session ends (soon), the Texas Lege won’t meet again until 2013. So that means no vote in favor of any proposed amendment for at least 2 years, even in a state that you would think would support it.

    The ratification portion of the process always takes years to accomplish.

    SO – asking for a Balanced Budget Amendment is a nice political framing move, a stunt if you will to set up a good narrative for the 2012 elections. But don’t let yourself think it’s anything more than that – our system is set up so that it’s impossible to amend the Constitution without years of work and overwhelming agreement from just about everybody.

    If everyone does agree on a BBA, we *might* get it enacted by 2016 or so. But that’s still not soon enough to address our current problems, which is why whatever else it is, the BBA is NOT a “Solution” to where we are now.

  10. ivehadit says:

    When you only have 1/3 of the government you HAVE to play strategy. You do not have the absolute power to win. Even when the democrats had ALL branches they could not get everything they wanted. Lessen to be learned. It’s the way the Founders set up our country and unfortunately the Alinskyites know how to use the founding principles against us.
    So we have to be VERY creative and in this case, we have not played our hands perfectly, THANKS TO THE ______ GANG OF SIX, but we have wrenched a lot out of the deal, mainly that we have exposed what the government has been doing and how much things cost/why the debt is destructive.

    I want to thank “no debt” Dave Ramsey as well as Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party and those in the Senate who are helping to make a difference. This is the second brick in the road. (The first was Nov. ’10)

  11. oneal lane says:

    Remember with the “left” you must always be aware of the “end game.” Driving the US into bankrupcy and the death of the US dollar opens the door wider for a “global currency” It also bankkrupts the US economically and as a world power.

    The end game is a global government.

  12. Jinny says:

    I feel a little better if WWS and Lurker think it’s a not as bad as I think it is.

    I’m trying to think positively.. as hard as it is.

  13. WWS says:

    One comment I read this morning that struck home: “You haven’t won when YOU think you’ve won. You know you’ve won when your ENEMIES think you’ve won.”

    Just read the New York Times, expecially teh Krugman, to know what the other side thinks of this deal. Krugman thinks it’s the End of Civilisation as We Know It. (maybe as HE knows it, heh heh heh) Durbin is calling it the Death of Keynesianism, there is howling and moaning and doomsaying all across the left this morning.

    And what’s most delicious of all, the Progressive Base now *knows* – knows beyond any shadow of a doubt – that Obama will always give them happy talk and then sell them out as soon as he sees a political advantage for himself. They can’t hide that fact from themselves any more, not after this. He will NOT stand and fight for them – he won’t stand and fight for anything.

    “Hope and Cave” – you’ll see that slogan all across the left’s blog sites this morning. And it’s true – we now know Obama’s greatest weakness, and it flows directly from his inexperience, and the general fact that he’s completely out of his depth in this position. It is this: whenever he’s put under serious pressure, put into a position where he thinks *HE* might be in some danger (electorally, in this instance) he will fold. Every time. He has no stomach for a drawn out fight. His claim “Don’t call my bluff!” now stands out as the amateurish blunder that it was. Here’s how to deal with Obama – ALWAYS call his bluff! (Khaddaffy already figured that one out, as have the Chinese, as have the Iranians, as have the Russians) When the going gets tough, the tough may get going, but Obama will check into the nearest day spa.

    The man has no nerve, and no stomach for a fight. Think about this for a minute – in the big picture, the Left spent years setting this moment up. They thought they were being smart by hiding his background, but they outsmarted themselves! They have now put all their weight behind a man who, in his soul, has no fight in him at all! President Pantywaist, that’s what they gave us. The Soros’s and the Alinskyites and the Rad Progressives have bet all of their hopes for grand societal change – on the biggest Coward ever to hold the Presidency!! HA HA HA HA – as bad as things are, how can you not laugh at that??!!

    And in parting, consider this: How many progressives do you think will be walking the neighborhoods campaigning for Obama next election? Yeah, that’s the same number I come up with.

  14. Whomever says:

    hm, WWS – yes. The Left thought they could hide his background. They could not. It showed up. The woman of the abusive husband thinks she can change him. She will not, for he will show up. Icarus fell, for egotistical man cannot fly with wax wings.

    The chickens have come home to roost.

  15. Mike M. says:

    What infuriates me is that the Defense budget – a mere 20% of Federal spending – is targeted for 50% of the cuts.

    Are there NO adults in Washington? National security is a necessity. Welfares – ALL welfares – are a luxury item.

    And adults pay for necessities first, luxuries later.

  16. Redteam says:

    WWS? “as far as military cuts go – so go ahead and force Obama to surrender to Khadaffy, that war’s lost already.”

    did we want Khadaffy to lose? to be replaced by al Qaeda? why? Is one worse than the other?

    lurker? “Given the fact that Obama is in the WH and the Democrats control the Senate, we’re given two choices: this deal or nothing. ” I choose ‘nothing’ as the better deal.

    This is a clear win for the Dims. reducing a debt limit in 10 years from 26 T to ‘only’ 23 T is no victory for the Repubs or Tea Party.

  17. oneal lane says:

    My understanding is that in this plan government spending continues to increase at a somewhat slower pace and th Bush tax cut’s expire. That equates to a tax increase.

  18. lurker9876 says:

    I am seeing an increase in the number of articles about Obama’s failure in many ways than one. Even declared Obama as a man with no principles.

    I was a bit amused about an article about primarying Obama. But the problem is that Obama already has 47 million in his war chest and his primary opponents…zero in their war chests. The writer of this article thought Hillary, Kucinich, and Sanders might be the most viable candidates but they’re just not there.

    I understand that the Congressional Democrats have been whining to the press all morning.

    If this deal passes, I’m led to believe that this takes care of the FY2012 budget? I couldn’t figure it out.

    As for the defense, if we go to another war, then Congress will find something to finance that war. The problem is that any defense cuts will not lead to a well-trained, well-prepared, well-equipped military.

    I understand that Iraq has become more dangerous and Afghanistan…well, we’re worred about the Taliban.

    wws, you’re right that world leaders already had Obama pegged long before the American Democrats are starting to come to this conclusion….like Peggy Noonan.

    redteam, I don’t have a problem with us going to default. But we won’t come to a default tomorrow no matter what.

  19. lurker9876 says:

    Redteam, Obama was never interested in victory when it comes to waging war against our enemies (yeah, we know who those enemies are); therefore, I’d rather pull all of our troops out of Middle East and let Middle East wage war against each other.

    As bad as I have no problems with default, I am starting to not care anything about Iran. Let Iran build its own weapons to wake up the world. Bush, UN, and Obama have done absolutely nothing to prevent Iran from producing its own weapons. Too many lefts denying this fact.

  20. crosspatch says:

    Consider where we would be right now had we not hit the debt ceiling when we did and what we actually have now that we did.

    Had we not hit the debt ceiling some couple of months back things would have been cruising right along with the old spending profile. As it happened, we did hit the ceiling and as a result, were able to use what little leverage we have holding only one house of Congress to make some, albeit relatively minor, changes.

    This is actually a pretty decent deal in my opinion. The scope of the changes is pretty much an accurate reflection of the power currently wielded by the Republicans, which currently isn’t very much. It does lay the groundwork, though, for more significant changes after the 2012 elections should the Republicans win the Senate.