GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion

**Prince** · 04-03-2011, 06:59 PM

GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion
By Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY

The House Republican who's writing a proposed 2012 federal budget said Sunday that the plan would cut more than $4 trillion in Washington spending over the next 10 years.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., head of the House Budget Committee, previewed general details of the plan set to be officially unveiled Tuesday even as Republicans and Democrats continued negotiations over a spending deal for the next six months that's needed to avoid a government shutdown on Friday.

In a Fox News Sundayappearance, Ryan said the GOP 2012 budget blueprint would exceed the $4 trillion in spending cuts previously recommended by a presidential debt commission "by cutting spending, reforming entitlements and growing our economy."

Instead of using changeable spending caps as a percentage of the economy, the plan would use budget caps set by law on the portion of the federal budget that is negotiated by Congress and the president each year, Ryan said. Republican proposals for the precise levels are still being discussed, he said.

The plan would also lower federal tax rates and broaden the tax base, Ryan said. Decisions on specific tax changes, such as eliminating federal tax breaks for oil and gas companies, would come later, Ryan said.

Discussing entitlements, he said the plan would change Medicare, the federal health care plan for seniors, by creating a "premium support" system that allows seniors "to pick the (private health) plan of their choosing, and then Medicare subsidizes that plan."

However, the plan would allow Americans who are now 55 and older to keep the current Medicare programs.

"By addressing the drivers of the debt now, we do it in a gradual way," Ryan said. "We can guarantee the mission of health and retirement security, not just for current generations, but for future generations."

Democrats who appeared on the Sunday morning TV news broadcasts said they looked forward to congressional debate once specifics of the GOP proposal are released.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democratic leaders used the Sunday broadcasts to stake out their positions on efforts to fund government operations through Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. Washington funding is set to expire at midnight Friday. Much of the federal government would be forced to shut down unless an agreement is reached. Both sides have focused on cuts in the $33 billion range but haven't agreed on specifics.

On Saturday, President Obama phoned House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and urged an acceptable compromise that would avert what he called an economically harmful government shutdown.

"We've agreed on a number. Let's work on getting something done," Reid said on CBS News' Face the Nation.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking GOP member of the Senate budget committee, said on ABC's This Week he was unsure whether budget negotiators had made substantial progress over the weekend.

But, echoing other Republicans and Democratic leaders and senior committee members, Sessions said: "I doubt there will be a shutdown."

GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion - USATODAY.com

**phosphor** · 04-03-2011, 07:16 PM

4 Trillion? I never thought the republicans would EVER grow a set to throw a number like that out there. Sure, it's a 10 year plan, but it's a great start compared to the paltry numbers the other side has been throwing around. If this isn't more goverment magical numbers, then I like the sound of 'T' when they are talking cuts, instead of the usual spending with the same letter. I will be looking into the details on this one.

Now, if Boehner would present it to the people without crying, then if may actually bite.

Thanks Prince.

**danzik17** · 04-03-2011, 07:35 PM

It's still not enough. He's talking about cutting 400 billion per year. It's a shitload of money don't get me wrong, but our deficits have been topping 1 trillion. You've got a ways to go buddy.

**Zaphod** · 04-03-2011, 08:29 PM

But you still have to start somewhere, right?

**Dale Mabry** · 04-04-2011, 04:56 AM

$4 trillion is a great start no doubt. Also, psyched to hear they are going to wait to close tax loopholes and oil subsidies, I'd much rather them cancel subsidies to the poor for heating oil, or maybe there's a baby somewhere they can kick.

. Hell, go to a middle school in Camden and I am pretty sure you can go steal some kids subsidized lunch money.

**TheGreatSatan** · 04-04-2011, 06:54 AM

About damn time. Good luck getting the Democrat controlled Senate to approve anything the House votes on. I know the House has the ability to defund whatever they choose. Do they still have to have the Senate approve the cuts?

**bigpapabuff** · 04-05-2011, 12:51 PM

all talk, I don't think anyone really wants to cut spending. Both parties are out of control.

**phosphor** · 04-05-2011, 01:14 PM

6.2 Trillion now. Comon, let's keep going up.

Just imagine for one second and just think if this passed. Now, assuming most of it is cutting a shitton of pork and government BS programs(I will be reading their proposal over the next few days), just think of all the money that has been going down the drain for all these years funding these programs. One way or another, the beast needs a diet or it's torches and pitchforks soon.

**LAM** · 04-05-2011, 03:17 PM

cutting social services right before the start of a double dip recession...brilliant

**Big Pimpin** · 04-05-2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

cutting social services right before the start of a double dip recession...brilliant

Double dip recession? The hell you say! Obama did a victory lap all last summer telling us the recession is over.

**phosphor** · 04-05-2011, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

cutting social services right before the start of a double dip recession...brilliant

Wouldn't want Shamika, Jamal and Betty Jo in her doublewide to get off their dead asses and be productive members of society or anything... noooo!

I swear your so far out in left field that if you even hear the words republic, tea or conserve, you automatically go into convulsions and start battering on your keyboard. Grow up.

**LAM** · 04-05-2011, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by phosphor

Wouldn't want Shamika, Jamal and Betty Jo in her doublewide to get off their dead asses and be productive members of society or anything... noooo!

what does your family have to do with this?

**IronAddict** · 04-06-2011, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by phosphor

Wouldn't want Shamika, Jamal and Betty Jo in her doublewide to get off their dead asses and be productive members of society or anything... noooo!

I swear your so far out in left field that if you even hear the words republic, tea or conserve, you automatically go into convulsions and start battering on your keyboard. Grow up.

What!

LAM gives you facts and the links to check those facts. You're just making rude blanket statements. But that's the GOPs m.o.

Your telling him to grow up?

Sticking up for a party that doesn't stick up for you, is just absurd. My lord, this isn't pre 2000 anymore, everythings been exposed for the fraud it is.

Honestly, that guy has more patients than anybody I know in real life, myself included.

**DEATH MATCH** · 04-06-2011, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by LAM

what does your family have to do with this?

Lam you have a double wide and why would you name a kid betty jo that doesnt go with lamal and shamika

**Dale Mabry** · 04-06-2011, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

what does your family have to do with this?

You went for the finishing move right off the bat, very nice!

**LAM** · 04-06-2011, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by DEATH MATCH

Lam you have a double wide and why would you name a kid betty jo that doesnt go with lamal and shamika

sorry kid I grew up in a 10K square foot house in valley forge, pa with our own gas pump by the garage...

**LAM** · 04-06-2011, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Sticking up for a party that doesn't stick up for you, is just absurd. My lord, this isn't pre 2000 anymore, everythings been exposed for the fraud it is.

the GOP'ers that are not wealthy don't understand that their party hates them as much as poor liberals and/or democrats. the GOP only cares about the future of the party itself not those that support the party, a vast difference...

**phosphor** · 04-06-2011, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by IronAddict

What!

LAM gives you facts and the links to check those facts.

Where are these 'facts' in which you speak of? This thread?

Oh.. his other threads? The links to his opinion pieces? Damn. I am not willing lobotomize myself to believe in your nonsense that all of his super informational posts and links are nothing more than opinion pieces with some picked out facts to steer the story towards a liberal agenda.

I am not saying all. Lam has some very valid points at times. You however are some wierd, stalking Lam groupie - I fear for Lam's safety, however innocent your intentions may seem from an outside perspective.

**IronAddict** · 04-07-2011, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by phosphor

Where are these 'facts' in which you speak of? This thread?

Oh.. his other threads? The links to his opinion pieces? Damn. I am not willing lobotomize myself to believe in your nonsense that all of his super informational posts and links are nothing more than opinion pieces with some picked out facts to steer the story towards a liberal agenda.

I am not saying all. Lam has some very valid points at times. You however are some wierd, stalking Lam groupie - I fear for Lam's safety, however innocent your intentions may seem from an outside perspective.

Actually, that labotomy idea is a good one, if you still think there's a difference between parties.

The rest is just too silly to even respond to.

**IronAddict** · 04-07-2011, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by LAM

the GOP'ers that are not wealthy don't understand that their party hates them as much as poor liberals and/or democrats. the GOP only cares about the future of the party itself not those that support the party, a vast difference...

Absolutely..The party of Lincoln my ass!

**Kathybird** · 04-07-2011, 10:50 AM

Yeah well, if they all don't get off their asses the hubby ain't gettin' paid next week. We can't afford that.

**irish_2003** · 04-07-2011, 10:53 AM

here's the differences

dems = handouts
reps = hand up

reps = cut the deficit and bring value back to the american dollar
dems = try not to spend as much as they want and make the less fortunate reliant on their party and buy votes basically

**LAM** · 04-07-2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

reps = cut the deficit and bring value back to the american dollar
dems = try not to spend as much as they want and make the less fortunate reliant on their party and buy votes basically

you mean the deficit created by the last 3 "conservative" presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush...

conservatives can't govern FEMA is a pefect example. it worked great under Clinton but was disastrous under both Bush's...

you say the dems must buy votes. the GOP does the exact same thing except they rely on monies from big corporations because of their inability to build to and sustain large popular voting majorities in the public

conservatives get their political energy from angry voices of rage and they will always blame "others" for the failures built into their ideology. their beliefs if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. their belief in laissez faire and continued and constant support of a corrupt business-government partnership bearing striking resemblance to feudalism.

**DOMS** · 04-07-2011, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

the GOP does the exact same thing except they rely on monies from big corporations

You think that the Dems don't take money from big corporations?

**ALBOB** · 04-07-2011, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

you mean the deficit created by the last 3 "conservative" presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush...

You're shittin' me, right? Add up the entire deficit created by those three and compare it to the current one.

**bandaidwoman** · 04-07-2011, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

here's the differences

dems = handouts
reps = hand up

reps = cut the deficit and bring value back to the american dollar
dems = try not to spend as much as they want and make the less fortunate reliant on their party and buy votes basically

more like

Dems - individual welfare

Reps- coorporate welfare

**Zaphod** · 04-07-2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by irish_2003

here's the differences

dems = handouts
reps = hand up

reps = cut the deficit and bring value back to the american dollar
dems = try not to spend as much as they want and make the less fortunate reliant on their party and buy votes basically

And you actually believe that?

**LAM** · 04-07-2011, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

You're shittin' me, right? Add up the entire deficit created by those three and compare it to the current one.

80% of the deficit is carry over from Bush policies

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (September 2008)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9...dateSlides.pdf

**Zaphod** · 04-07-2011, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

80% of the deficit is carry over from Bush policies

The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update (September 2008)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9...dateSlides.pdf

Don't cloud the issue with facts, dude. Facts don't matter. Only what the politicians say matters.

**DOMS** · 04-07-2011, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

80% of the deficit is carry over from Bush policies

And it's a good thing that Obama is carrying on that way.

Thread: GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion

Thread Tools

Display

GOP budget plan to cut more than $4 trillion

Similar Threads

Obama Unveils $3.8 Trillion Budget

Obama Offers Plan to Trim $4 Trillion From Deficit in 12 Years

3.8 trillion

Obama's drowning in red ink: Budget deficit balloons to $1.8 trillion

Posting Permissions