Biden's America

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

With the rest.  What are you even talking about?  I'm not saying anything about what eventually will happen.  I'm talking about the bill that Republicans passed.  Right now it's an across the board cut and it will continue to be that way till they put in the bill what specifically they are going to cut.  Republicans can talk about lolly pops and fruit cups all day long.  But, until it's in a bill....that they already passed, it's not reality.

Will you ever get around to actually answering a question about funding levels?

 

I’ll ask again one last time, then just assume you would rather spit Dem talking points.  
 

Why can’t the annual budget eliminate all the excess Covid increases and get back to a level at which the budget would have been had there not been a Covid pandemic?  In simpler terms, had Covid not existed, the annual budget would be roughly $5.2-$5.5 trillion dollars for 2024 given recent historical avg increases.  Yet Dems are balking at a budget of over $6 trillion proposed.   
 

Why is a good portion of the Covid increase now becoming permanent?? 

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

if they want a 22% reduction in the entire budget,

They dont

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Will you ever get around to actually answering a question about funding levels?

 

Will I?  Probably not...because I'm not in charge of it and don't know the answers.

 

However, you seem to be saying...."oh...just trust the Republicans on this".  

 

Sorry....no.

[knapplc]

Sounds like the attempts to dig up/manufacture dirt against President Biden are going well...

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Will I?  Probably not...because I'm not in charge of it and don't know the answers.

 

However, you seem to be saying...."oh...just trust the Republicans on this".  

 

Sorry....no.

Are you personally fine with Covid era funding level increases becoming permanent?  

[Guy Chamberlin]

You know what some people find as hard to believe as unicorns?

 

That Republicans traditionally blow up spending and deficits more the Democrats. Even as they clutch their pearls about government overspending. 

 

Hard to believe, but true. 

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

And...BTW....if they want a 22% reduction in the entire budget, but they aren't going to cut programs like SS, VA, teachers...etc, then that means other major programs are going to be cut way more.  

 

 

Where does the 22% reduction of the entire budget come from again? 

[nic]

On 5/3/2023 at 1:01 PM, knapplc said:

 

So you made that claim without knowing it was true, retroactively tried to find proof to back up that absurd claim, and failing, just dropped a link from a company that just paid $750 million in settlements for lying. 

 

Classic.

No. I knew that article existed before I posted, but had to find it again. I could have posted others too, but you don't really care. wait until Friday. I will post a Biden "I did that" meme after title 42 expires tomorrow with lots of links about the border for you to digest.

[nic]

On 5/3/2023 at 2:15 PM, sho said:

 

We saw how well that went for Dealin Bricks...I mean Dillon Brooks...maybe poking bears isn't a wise idea.

Wow I had to Google this. I honestly didn't know who Dillion Brooks was. The Grizzlies?

[knapplc]

Just now, nic said:

No. I knew that article existed before I posted, but had to find it again. I could have posted others too, but you don't really care. wait until Friday. I will post a Biden "I did that" meme after title 42 expires tomorrow with lots of links about the border for you to digest.

 

We're all sure you knew that article on Fox existed, and no one's surprised you used a company that just got caught lying to their audience as a source, but that's not really the point. You claimed "the press secretary continually tells us the southern border is doing great" which is a lie, and the link from the disgraced company you provided didn't support that lie. 

 

Go ahead, google it again. See if you can find that quote that you wish existed. We'd all love to see it. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Where does the 22% reduction of the entire budget come from again? 

@BigRedBuster  just checking on your sourcing for this again. 

[Archy1221]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karine-jean-pierre-roasted-claiming-illegal-immigration-90-people-think-stupid.amp
 

https://nypost.com/2022/08/29/white-house-claims-migrants-not-walking-across-border/amp/
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/karine-jean-pierre-fentanyl-at-the-border-its-at-historic-lows/

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

@BigRedBuster  just checking on your sourcing for this again. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-republicans-pledge-to-cut-appropriated-programs-to-2022-level-would

 

Some interesting tid bits.

 

Quote

In this short analysis, we show the likely implications of the House Republicans’ pledge under a few different scenarios. To return total funding for all defense and non-defense programs funded through annual appropriations to their 2022 levels would, for example, require cutting these appropriations below their 2023 enacted level by roughly 8 percent on average. To the extent that certain programs are exempted from these cuts, as some Republicans have indicated they will seek to do, other programs would need to be cut more deeply. For instance, fully funding veterans’ medical care and shielding defense from cuts (but still freezing it at its 2023 level) would mean an average cut of 23 percent to other non-defense programs to achieve the House Republican goal of lowering total funding for appropriations to the 2022 level.

Quote

Policymakers’ reluctance to cut defense funding would likely force far larger cuts in non-defense program areas if overall discretionary funding were ratcheted back to its 2022 level.^[7] Reducing defense funding to its 2022 level in 2024 would require a cut of $76 billion from its current level. If instead one assumes that defense funding is frozen in 2024 — that is, held at its 2023 level rather than being reduced to the 2022 level — but that House Republicans still press to return total discretionary funding to its 2022 level, then those additional cuts would need to be absorbed by non-defense programs. If that comes on top of protecting veterans’ medical care, then the remaining non-defense programs would need to be cut by 23 percent on average. (See Figure 1.) If policymakers increase defense above its 2023 level, then non-defense programs would have to be cut even more deeply.

OK, it's not the entire budget.  But, it all depends on how Republicans are planning to make the cuts.  If they refuse to cut Defense, the percentage other programs have to take climbs dramattically.  And, if Defense and VA is all protected, then everything else is sitting at around 23%.