October 2010 - Republicans Promised $100 Billion In Spending Cuts - They Only Got $38 Billion

[TomCADem]

I am seeing a lot of posts about Republicans "winning" the budget battle with the Democrats. My question is how? In the 2010 election, Republicans promised $100 billion in spending cuts for 2011. No one was talking about a budget that had not even been introduced until February 2011. Yet, once they got elected and took office, Republicans immediately started walking back their promises, and said that they were only referring to President Obama's budget proposal for FY 2010-2011, which had increased from FY 2009-2010. Then, even with this expanded yardstick, Republicans did not get the $100 billion they promised.

So, the Republicans promised $100 billion in spending cuts. They only got $38 billion despite a huge majority in the House. Yet, some "Democrats" claim that the Republicans won this budget battle?

A lot of folks are drinking the corporate media spin Kool-Aid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39882822/ns/politics-decision_2010/

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.

The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.

It's certain that Republicans want to capitalize quickly on tea party-fueled anger and the antiestablishment fervor that they believe will provide momentum to accomplish an activist to-do list. It's equally clear, however, that the outsized expectations of a fed-up electorate and a crop of unruly newcomers could complicate the plans. So could Obama and fellow Democrats who will still be around after Tuesday's elections.

[Hannah Bell]

1. well, that's one way to spin it.

[TomCADem]

3. Spin? Republicans Promised $100 billion in spending cuts!

Do you see the corporate media reminding us that Republicans were not talking about some yet to be released proposed Presidential budget. Republicans were proposed $100 billion in cuts from the prior year budget. Sadly, we don't have a liberal Fox News to rub Republicans' noses in their failure to achieve their promise.

[Hannah Bell]

5. the year's not over, and there were already earlier cuts.

[TomCADem]

10. Here Is The GOP 2010 Pledge To America - Looks Like They Are Talking About This Year

I did not see any language about the first year being pro-rated.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf

Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels: With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.

[Hannah Bell]

11. now i'm totally confused. what year?

[TomCADem]

19. Since budgeting is by fiscal year, then this is it...

...unless someone wants to make the argument that everyone understood that the Republicans were really referring to two separate fiscal years when they were referring to this year. Still, the corporate media does love to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

[Hannah Bell]

26. i don't see anything in that document specifying a year. they talk about "in the first

year".

they've gotten more than $38.5 B in effective cuts in the 2011 fiscal year.

[TomCADem]

32. Document says the first year...

Yet, feel free to admire Republican, and disaparage Democrats.

[msongs]

2. its practice for slashing SS and claiming victory lol nt

[TomCADem]

8. If Democrats Had This Attitude, DADT Wouldn't Be Repealed...

...The U.S. auto industry would be history. We would be a deep depression because the stimulus would not have been adopted over Republican opposition, and credit would have completely dried up. Health care reform would not be passed nor would finacial reform be passed over Republican opposition.

Finally, Planned Parenthood, and the EPA would have been gutted.

Yet, if some folks want to attack Democrats as failures, I will have to say sorry, but I am not going to buy into that narrative.

Who needs Fox News when you have DUers pushing the exact same narratives and giving Republicans a free pass.

[pnwmom]

4. Thanks for the reminder. n/t

[Union Scribe]

6. Have you ever negotiated anything?

Car price? A raise?

You start with a number you know you're never going to get, in the hopes that the other party is a sucker enough to give you what you were realistically after and walk away proud for having knocked you down. They won. If you want to be proud they didn't get their first, insane offer, then have fun with that.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Okay...

Next time I'm negotiating a car price, I'll try to get 62% off the marked price - we'll see how that works out for me. ;-)

[treestar]

18. Exactly. The poster you responded to is the one who never

negotiated anything. While you start higher than you can get, you don't start so high that the other party laughs and walks off. the other side will not just cave because you have the "bravery" to make a ridiculous demand.

I remember a personal injury case for a soft tissue injury rear end auto collision - plaintiff lawyer wanted 350K because plaintiff suffered from infertility - hardly caused by the accident, but he said it and walked out - probably because he didn't want to hear the rest of us laughing our asses off.

[TomCADem]

9. Oh, when a Democrat says it, it is a promise, but when a Republican says it...

...it is just a savy negotiation ploy.

[Union Scribe]

12. Which worked.

Like I said, if you want to call only getting 38% beaten up a victory, nothing's stopping you. Personally, I'm getting a little fucking tired of it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

20. The beatings are for those who try to destroy everyone else's morale

Those people who are so negative that their morale is gone when they don't get it all the first time. Those who get distracted into complaints rather than continuing one.

[TomCADem]

22. Well, then as Democrats Discovered In Wisconsin, Ohio, Etc. Work To Elect Democrats!

I know there is a corporate sock puppet narrative being pushed to depress turnout on the left that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

However, this is just the latest example that there is a vast difference between the two parties. Does anyone want to argue that if Democrats controlled the House and Nancy Pelosi was speaker that we would get this budget?

Anyone?

Well, if you don't like the result, then the answer is not apathy.

[Union Scribe]

30. We didn't get a budget when we did control the House

As for apathy, that is closer to your position that it's okay to lose a little so long as the GOP didn't get their whole wishlist. I prefer not to lose at all, thanks.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. This $38 be is only through Sept, I believe

So $76 billion for an entire year. Plus $40 billion in cuts that Obama agreed on before starting negotiations.

[DCBob]

15. Folks, this is just the beginning.. the debt ceiling and 2012 budget is next.

Im afraid its going to get very very ugly. The Teabagger GOPers do not care if they destroy the economy.. in fact that is their preference.

[MH1]

21. Yes, they want to destroy the economy for several reasons

1) it will help them prevent Obama's re-election. (far and away the number 1 reason)
2) more indigent and unemployed folk to be vulnerable to their snake oil salesmen (aka religious fundamentalists)
3) cheap labor for their favored industries
4) more misery for those who have not followed the 'right' path in life according to their sick ideology.

[DCBob]

25. You got that right... I get the feeling they just want to punish people for not agreeing with them.

sick bastards.

[BklnDem75]

16. It could've been $10 billion in cuts, the outrage would've been the same

They're nothing if not predictable.

[DCBob]

17. no doubt.

They are a angry lot.. seems nothing will satisfy them short of revolution and guillotines.

[Fearless]

23. They got 78 billion. The president "wanted" a 40 billion increase in the budget. Nice try though.

[BklnDem75]

27. So Obama getting want he wants is added to what they want too?

Anything for outrage, eh? :eyes:

[Fearless]

29. No. He wanted to add 40 bil to the budget actually.

[BklnDem75]

33. Still doesn't work that way

That's like saying Obama wanted a $200 billion budget and we end up getting $150 billion, complaining we lost $50 billion. You can't complain about imaginary money. It starts from 0, not from a proposal.

[Mass]

24. They got 78 billions, not 38 billions.

And the 38 billions need to be compared to the 32 billions the GOP offered at the beginning of the negotiation.

[TomCADem]

31. $78 Billion If You Accept The Corporate Media Talking Points!

The $78 billion is based on the President's budget proposal, which was not announced until February 2011!. The promise was based on existing spending in 2010!

So, unless you are saying that Republicans are clairvoyant, the Republicans broke their campaign promise. Will the media point out this broken promise? Will you?

[Logical]

28. Good point.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.