Bi Partisan Budget Deal

[Kowalski]

The budget deal that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) negotiated with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) will still add $8 trillion to the already-oversized national debt according to data included in statements made by Ryan and Murray, Breitbart News has learned.

Current law, which includes the Budget Control Act (BCA) known colloquially as the sequester, would push the national debt to $25.228 trillion in 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The original BCA passed in 2011 had a goal of $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction over a 10-year window that ended in 2021.

The budget deal Ryan negotiated with Murray would include, at most, only $23 billion in deficit reduction. In comparison to current law, that means the national debt would reach $25.205 trillion by 2023.

Since the national debt right now is about $17.233 trillion, Ryan’s deal with Murray did virtually nothing to change the national debt from current law. Current law and the Ryan deal each increase the national debt by about $8 trillion over the next decade.

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/10/Ryan-s-budget-deal-keeps-America-on-path-to-25-trillion-national-debt

Yeah, let's just kick the can down the road....

Ladies and Gentlemen, Wahington has a spending problem. And it's not just the Democrats, as this clearly shows, so do the Republicans.

House Republicans "capitulated" in agreeing to the two-year budget deal reached last night and left the country to deal with an unsustainable fiscal situation until the peak of the presidential primaries in 2015, when nothing will get done, former federal budget director David Stockman told CNBC on Wednesday.

"First, let's be clear—It's a joke and betrayal," Stockman, who served under President Ronald Reagan, said on "Squawk on the Street." "It's the final surrender of the House Republican leadership to Beltway politics and kicking the can and ignoring the budget monster that's hurtling down the road."

Stockman added that the budget deal means U.S. lawmakers would take a "two-year vacation" from dealing with the country's fiscal situation, and instead revisit it in 2015 at around the same time as the Iowa straw polls. Without an incumbent in the presidential race, both political parties would be too busy to touch the budget, he said.

Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101265477

Good article here by the way....

Link: http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/11/just-little-the-budget-deal-matters-in-t

[supervike]

This is partisan politics at it's finest.

It would be almost comedic to watch them fail so often, if it didn't have such an impact on the people and country I love.

[ninjadude]

because shutting down the government was sooo effective.

$24 billion.

That’s according to an estimate from Standard & Poor’s. The financial services company said the shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy, and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent

http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/

.

[preacherman76]

because shutting down the government was sooo effective.

http://swampland.tim...st-the-economy/

.

Oh ninja. Do tell. What does this have to do with the fact that both parties are spending us into oblivion?

[Frank Merton]

This is partisan politics at it's finest.

It would be almost comedic to watch them fail so often, if it didn't have such an impact on the people and country I love.

Actually this didn't look like a failure to me. They passed the compromise.

[preacherman76]

Actually this didn't look like a failure to me. They passed the compromise.

25 trillion dollars in DEBT, doesnt look like failure to you? Based on what comparison?

[Frank Merton]

I think you are economically illiterate. That number is all you know.

The fact is the House passed a measure to keep the government functioning for a couple years without another crisis like what happened last Fall. That was a success. Not a big success but hardly a failure.

[preacherman76]

I think you are economically illiterate. That number is all you know.

The fact is the House passed a measure to keep the government functioning for a couple years without another crisis like what happened last Fall. That was a success. Not a big success but hardly a failure.

I think you have no concept of learning from history.

Proving to the world that we have no intention of ever paying our debt is hardly adverting a crisis. Not only will we never be able to pay this debt, but we expect to be given trillions MORE. Maybe we make it 2 more years under this crushing debt. But once the world has had enough of our wreakless spending, and pulls our reserve status, which they already talk about, that debt will turn us into a third world nation over night. Destroying the future of every person in this country, to mantain our standard of living for a couple years has to be about the biggest failure I can think of.

Edited December 13, 2013 by preacherman76

[Frank Merton]

GIGO

[Agent0range]

I think you have no concept of learning from history.

Proving to the world that we have no intention of ever paying our debt is hardly adverting a crisis. Not only will we never be able to pay this debt, but we expect to be given trillions MORE. Maybe we make it 2 more years under this crushing debt. But once the world has had enough of our wreakless spending, and pulls our reserve status, which they already talk about, that debt will turn us into a third world nation over night. Destroying the future of every person in this country, to mantain our standard of living for a couple years has to be about the biggest failure I can think of.

Frank is right. You are looking too much into the number. Have you ever taken economics? What people don't understand is that balancing the budget would essentially crush this country. It would put us into a recession that we would probably never get out of. The effects on the economy matter much more than the number of the debt. Yes, I know, the economy is not great right now, but it is much better than it would be without putting money into it.

[supervike]

Actually this didn't look like a failure to me. They passed the compromise.

Agreed, I was just talking in general terms.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think you are economically illiterate. That number is all you know.

The fact is the House passed a measure to keep the government functioning for a couple years without another crisis like what happened last Fall. That was a success. Not a big success but hardly a failure.

I think it's more a case of "not a failure, hardly a success".

Once again, noone has come up with a way to reduce that debt (other then "tax the people we're already taxing almost into poverty").

[preacherman76]

Frank is right. You are looking too much into the number. Have you ever taken economics? What people don't understand is that balancing the budget would essentially crush this country. It would put us into a recession that we would probably never get out of. The effects on the economy matter much more than the number of the debt. Yes, I know, the economy is not great right now, but it is much better than it would be without putting money into it.

Have you? I have never seen a economic model where unsustianable debt didnt destroy economies. By every historical measuring stick, we are well on our way to third world status.

[Agent0range]

That is simply not true. Have o

Have you? I have never seen a economic model where unsustianable debt didnt destroy economies. By every historical measuring stick, we are well on our way to third world status.

That is simply not true. Have you looked at the debts of other superpowers? It may be a lower amount, but the % of debt to their GDP is MUCH higher, which is an even bigger problem. The entire world has some sort of dependence on the state of our economy, which is why the numbers don't matter as much as you make them out to.

[Wickian]

The Republicans are in full "Let it Roll" mode. They aren't going to making a ruckus out of anything but Obamacare until after the next elections.

[Yamato]

Paul Ryan was the Republican Party's fiscal darling too.

Once again reality sets in and proves the same thing that's been repeatedly proven for generations now. Republicans are complete failures for providing any manner of real alternative to Democrats.

It's so simple-minded and inadequate the way our bipartisan government and media sell us on these two false choices for everything that comes around the corner allegedly needing federal attention. We get these new stations of misinformation and propaganda like Fox News Channel and MSNBC actually making people believe there's a real difference to be made between red and blue over all the manufactured problems we're assigned to rant about.

[Harte]

Simply not true.

Ryan earlier had produced other budgets that were much better, but people voted Democratic anyway. Remember Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff?

This current deal simply reflects this political reality.

Harte

[Yamato]

Simply not true.

Ryan earlier had produced other budgets that were much better, but people voted Democratic anyway. Remember Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff?

This current deal simply reflects this political reality.

Harte

This political surrender, more like.

[Frank Merton]

I think it's more a case of "not a failure, hardly a success".

Once again, noone has come up with a way to reduce that debt (other then "tax the people we're already taxing almost into poverty").

The way to tackle the debt is to get economic growth; the Fed has almost succeeded in this, in spite of the President and the Congress. If they could reform taxes to make the States' economy more efficient and competitive, and change some of the stultifying labor laws and liberalize immigration and engage in some genuine investment in infrastructure rather than political spreading money around, the States' economy could take off, eliminate the deficit, and be unapproachable. It ain't gonna happen with the present politics.

[Frank Merton]

I watched CNBC last night (it was their morning broadcast that we get in the evening here) and the point was made that the problem is only a bi-partisan approach can work. Otherwise it is too extreme, but as soon as someone tries to go by-partisan, the extremists launch a primary challenge and either defeat the moderate or force him or her into extreme votes. The participants of the discussion agreed there seems no way out and that is how I see it too. Fortunately for the present at least the Fed is independent enough to carry much of the freight, but only for so long.

[Yamato]

The way to tackle the debt is to get economic growth; the Fed has almost succeeded in this, in spite of the President and the Congress. If they could reform taxes to make the States' economy more efficient and competitive, and change some of the stultifying labor laws and liberalize immigration and engage in some genuine investment in infrastructure rather than political spreading money around, the States' economy could take off, eliminate the deficit, and be unapproachable. It ain't gonna happen with the present politics.

If by "the Fed" you mean the federal government, because the Fed's authority can't reform tax law or set policy on immigration, infrastructure, etc. "The Fed" refers to the Federal Reserve System and it isn't beholden to the President or the Congress who can't even audit it without an Act of Congress.

[Frank Merton]

Sorry; watching too much CNBC. "The Fed" is the Federal Reserve. The benefit of that group is that they are only somewhat political, and are able to avoid ideological extremes such as the Tea Party and its idiocy. The officials who handle such matters in Vietnam are completely unseen, and I think that works pretty well, although sometimes they fight the market on the currency's value a little too much.

: