Obama's Approval Numbers Higher than Both Reagan and Clinton's in the 7th Quarter of First Term

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Teatarded.

Back at ya.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you want to blame the reps that is your right. You are wrong but still you have the right to think what ever you choose. Thank God the rest of the electorate sees the disastar that the dems have caused and are righting it tomorrow.

How is the electorate righting it tomorrow? Do you really believe that the federal deficit will be curbed due to this new Congress coming in? If so, you're in for a big surprise.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

How is the electorate righting it tomorrow? Do you really believe that the federal deficit will be curbed due to this new Congress coming in? If so, you're in for a big surprise.

If he doesn't do what he says then in 2 years we will fire him.

Boehner Proposal Would Cut Non-Security Discretionary Programs 21 Percent, The Deepest Such Cut in Recent U.S. History Tax-Cut Part of Plan Designed to Achieve Opposite of Orszag Fiscal Goal

PDF of this report (4pp.)

By James R. Horney and Robert Greenstein

House Minority Leader John Boehner on September 8 issued a proposal to cut funding for non-security discretionary programs and to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years. He portrayed the proposal as a bipartisan compromise. Closer examination shows, however, that this is a radical plan that reflects deeply conservative ideology.

■The plan would require immediate cuts of $101 billion — or 21 percent[1] — in funding for discretionary programs other than those funded by the defense, homeland security, and military construction and veterans appropriations bills, as compared to their current (fiscal year 2010) funding levels adjusted for inflation (in other words, compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline).

■This would represent the deepest cut in funding for these programs from one year to the next in recent U.S. history .[2] Coming amidst the deepest economic downturn since the Depression, it would remove substantial purchasing power from the U.S. economy and thereby cost hundreds of thousands of jobs while heightening the risk of a double-dip recession. Rep. Boehner’s contrary claim that these cuts will “promote job creation” reflects a serious misunderstanding of basic macroeconomics under current economic conditions (see the box on page 3).

■Cuts of this magnitude would have sharp effects on basic services . For example, a 21 percent cut in K-12 education funding would take more than $8 billion out of this area in fiscal year 2011, on top of the deep education cuts that many state and local governments across the country are being forced to make.

■Rep. Boehner presents his proposal as freezing non-security discretionary funding at the fiscal year 2008 level, and he claims such funding has increased 85 percent since that year. Both of these claims, however, are off the mark. The funding level that Rep. Boehner proposes for non-security discretionary funding in 2011 actually is about $8 billion below the level of funding provided for such programs in 2008 , and his claim of an 85 percent increase is wildly inflated; the actual increase is less than one-fourth as large as he claims.

The Tax Cut Extension

■While Rep. Boehner presents the tax-cut extension component of his plan as being the same as a proposal advanced earlier this week by former OMB director Peter Orszag, there is a crucial difference that results in the Boehner proposal being in some respects the opposite of the Orszag proposal. Orszag called for extending the “middle-class” tax cuts for two years and, if politically necessary, extending all of the Bush tax cuts for that period — and then terminating all of them. Orszag envisions a commitment by key policymakers that, in extending the tax cuts now, they will allow the tax cuts to terminate after 2012.

■In contrast, Rep. Boehner has made clear he still wants all of the tax cuts made permanent. His new proposal is a rather transparent effort to extend the tax cuts into the next Congress when those who seek to make them permanent will have more votes, and then to require votes on making the Bush tax cuts permanent with the 2012 election approaching. Orszag seeks to avert several trillion dollars in tax-cut costs after 2012; Boehner essentially stands the Orszag proposal on its head as a way to improve the chances of getting the opposite result.

■The Boehner proposal would continue tax cuts that average well over $100,000 a year for people making over $1 million — tax cuts that are double the entire income of the typical American household. He would do so even as his proposal would withdraw funds from basic programs and services that most Americans of ordinary means rely on, and despite the fact that CBO has rated the tax-cut extension dead last in effectiveness among an array of options for boosting the current weak economy.

Analysis of the Proposed Cut in Non-Security Discretionary Funding

Rep. Boehner has proposed limiting total discretionary funding for fiscal year 2011 (which begins October 1) to $1.029 trillion (the limit apparently would not apply to funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), while setting the overall funding level for programs funded by the defense, homeland security, and military construction and veterans appropriations bills at the same level that President Obama’s 2011 budget requests for those programs. According to CBO, the President proposes $651 billion for these “security” parts of the budget. This leaves $378 billion for “non-security” discretionary funding under the Boehner plan.[3]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3286

Edited November 1, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Exactly. Clinton did it and the budget was turned around. Reagan and the Bush's didn't and the debt grew under their watch. Hell, the debt grew and the budget was sent on a deficit trajectory for a decade when the GOP had both Congress and the White House. But I guess that was the Dems fault, too.

No. It was the Republicans fault.

Dems will lose tomorrow.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Teatarded.

The Teatards will kick the Dems @ss tomorrow. Teabaggers! RWN! fuctards! Any other names? How about "douchebags!"

Dems will lose to ALL of them.

Pretty bad when you can't even beat a teatard.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The president's office does write the federal budget and sends it to congress for approval......

Where it is dead on arrival. This year, Congress has not even voted on a budget, yet has managed to spend over $1.5 Trillion.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If he doesn't do what he says then in 2 years we will fire him.

Boehner Proposal Would Cut Non-Security Discretionary Programs 21 Percent, The Deepest Such Cut in Recent U.S. History Tax-Cut Part of Plan Designed to Achieve Opposite of Orszag Fiscal Goal

PDF of this report (4pp.)

By James R. Horney and Robert Greenstein

House Minority Leader John Boehner on September 8 issued a proposal to cut funding for non-security discretionary programs and to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years. He portrayed the proposal as a bipartisan compromise. Closer examination shows, however, that this is a radical plan that reflects deeply conservative ideology.

Boehner's proposal is also dead on arrival. When the Democrats lose, or keep the House tomorrow, his days in the leadership are over. Expect to see the likes of Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan challenge him for Speaker and/or Leader in January.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ##########