PDA

View Full Version : Santorum: I'll cut $5 Trillion in 5 years



Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 12:38 PM
Ok....Santy said during the debate last night and on several other occassions he's going to cut 5 trillion dollars from the federal budget in 5 years.

The Federal budget in 2012 was $3.7 trillion. :rolleyes:

Why isn't anyone calling this guy out on this baloney (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/05/santorums-top-goals-5-trillion-in-cuts-entitlement-overhaul/)?


from his own website:

Proposals

Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years

Rockntractor
02-23-2012, 12:43 PM
in other news Ron Paul reports that Iran is not developing nukes.

Rockntractor
02-23-2012, 12:43 PM
Ron Paul eats crayons dipped in sugar.

Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 12:49 PM
I actually enjoyed it very much last night when Romney called out Santorum for actively campaigning for and supporting Sen. Arlen Specter.

You know... the RINO conservative who became a Democrat and cast the deciding vote for Obama care.

So the fact that this guy makes you so hot in the loins is probably why you don't care that you can't cut 5 trillion from 3.7.

Rockntractor
02-23-2012, 12:54 PM
I actually enjoyed it very much last night when Romney called out Santorum for actively campaigning for and supporting Sen. Arlen Specter.

You know... the RINO conservative who became a Democrat and cast the deciding vote for Obama care.

So the fact that this guy makes you so hot in the loins is probably why you don't care that you can't cut 5 trillion from 3.7.

He is probably also talking about the debt Paulywog.

Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 01:04 PM
He is probably also talking about the debt Paulywog.


Probably? That's not what he said. Next you'll tell me he's going to give me a Pony.

Arroyo_Doble
02-23-2012, 01:29 PM
So the fact that this guy makes you so hot in the loins is probably why you don't care that you can't cut 5 trillion from 3.7.

I took it to mean over five years.

Starbuck
02-23-2012, 01:54 PM
Yeah. These guys are forever talking about 5 year plans, 10 year plans, over the next decade, you name it. I wish they wouldn't, but there's no stopping them. CBO committee does it, too.

Didn't hear much about the 10 year cost of the payroll tax cut, though:confused:

On a sideways note, George Will posted a column pointing out that neither Romney nor Santorum look all that great for winning in November (sigh).
http://nems360.com/view/full_story/17628823/article-GEORGE-WILL--Republican-primary-features-two-miscast-candidates?instance=secondary_stories_left_column

Zathras
02-23-2012, 02:53 PM
Probably? That's not what he said. Next you'll tell me he's going to give me a Pony.

He's going to cut the budget by 5 trillion within 5 years.

He'll cut 1 trillion a year from the budget for 5 years.

Therefore he's cut 5 trillion within 5 years.

See how easy that was.

Madisonian
02-23-2012, 03:26 PM
Every politician says basically the same thing. The problem is that their timeline always seems to start in the middle of their hopefully second term or 10 years out.
Notice he did not say when he would start the cutting and I'd like to know how since the President does not have a line item veto and it is the House and Senate responsible for sending the budget to the President.

I don't see the Quaker Statist having the cajones to shut down the Federal government to get what he wants if the House or Senate are not solidly Republican.

Arroyo_Doble
02-23-2012, 03:36 PM
Every politician says basically the same thing. The problem is that their timeline always seems to start in the middle of their hopefully second term or 10 years out.
Notice he did not say when he would start the cutting and I'd like to know how since the President does not have a line item veto and it is the House and Senate responsible for sending the budget to the President.

I don't see the Quaker Statist having the cajones to shut down the Federal government to get what he wants if the House or Senate are not solidly Republican.

But isn't that the presidential schtick during the campaign?

"I will do X ... I will do Y .... I will do your mother .... blah blah blah."

They really are limited in what they can accomplish even with the Legislative Branch held by their party.

Molon Labe
02-23-2012, 03:37 PM
He's going to cut the budget by 5 trillion within 5 years.

He'll cut 1 trillion a year from the budget for 5 years.

Therefore he's cut 5 trillion within 5 years.

See how easy that was.

right...cut 1 trillion over 5 years......when the budget is 3.7 trillion. I get it.

Since there will BE no federal government if that happens, he will be the greatest conservative Ev'ah.

We will actually be getting change back.

Madisonian
02-23-2012, 06:35 PM
I'm not great at politimath, so lets see how this works out...

Starting with 2013 for example
2013 - 3.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 2.7 trillion
2014 - 2.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 1.7 trillion
2015 - 1.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 0.7 trillion
2016 - 0.7 trillion - 1 trillion = -0.3 trillion
2017 - -0.3 trillion - 1 trillion = -1.3 trillion

Of course the more likely scenario will be
2012 was 3.7 trillion so for 2013 Congress requests 5 trillion, Santorum stalls for 4 trillion, 1 trillion cut
2013 was 4 trillion so for 2014 Congress requests 6 trillion, Santorum stalls for 5 trillion, another trillion cut
and so on and so on.

Remember that in the Potomac Swamp, a decrease in the projected increase is a cut even if you spend more than the previous year.

Articulate_Ape
02-24-2012, 01:07 AM
Ok....Santy said during the debate last night and on several other occassions he's going to cut 5 trillion dollars from the federal budget in 5 years.

The Federal budget in 2012 was $3.7 trillion. :rolleyes:

Why isn't anyone calling this guy out on this baloney (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/05/santorums-top-goals-5-trillion-in-cuts-entitlement-overhaul/)?


from his own website:

For the sake of fairness to the man, I think $5 trillion over 5 years is $1 trillion/year. I'm just sayin'.

Articulate_Ape
02-24-2012, 01:11 AM
I'm not great at politimath, so lets see how this works out...

Starting with 2013 for example
2013 - 3.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 2.7 trillion
2014 - 2.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 1.7 trillion
2015 - 1.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 0.7 trillion
2016 - 0.7 trillion - 1 trillion = -0.3 trillion
2017 - -0.3 trillion - 1 trillion = -1.3 trillion

Of course the more likely scenario will be
2012 was 3.7 trillion so for 2013 Congress requests 5 trillion, Santorum stalls for 4 trillion, 1 trillion cut
2013 was 4 trillion so for 2014 Congress requests 6 trillion, Santorum stalls for 5 trillion, another trillion cut
and so on and so on.

Remember that in the Potomac Swamp, a decrease in the projected increase is a cut even if you spend more than the previous year.

Oh, that's right, just go ahead and steal my thunder. Maybe you'd like a side of lightning with that, you bastard!

AmPat
02-24-2012, 09:54 AM
I actually enjoyed it very much last night when Romney called out Santorum for actively campaigning for and supporting Sen. Arlen Specter.

You know... the RINO conservative who became a Democrat and cast the deciding vote for Obama care.

So the fact that this guy makes you so hot in the loins is probably why you don't care that you can't cut 5 trillion from 3.7.
Weak. Seriously, that's all you have?:rolleyes:
I wonder if maybe Santorum might have been suggesting cutting 5 trillion of unfunded liability as well as doing something about that budget that we haven't had for over a thousand days? But by all means, O Blah Blah is better. Try blowing your favorite candidate, O Blah Blah, outright instead of attacking the GOP candidates. It's more honest.

AmPat
02-24-2012, 09:58 AM
right...cut 1 trillion over 5 years......when the budget is 3.7 trillion. I get it.

Since there will BE no federal government if that happens, he will be the greatest conservative Ev'ah.

We will actually be getting change back.
Good, then the bastards can't steal from the taxpayers anymore. By the way, how's Barry doing for you? Did you like the way he turned the White House into a jazz club? Classy guy that Chicago Thug. Now for his next trick, he's going to fool the fools into thinking he's presidential material.

Rockntractor
02-26-2012, 02:06 AM
Probably? That's not what he said. Next you'll tell me he's going to give me a Pony.http://planetsmilies.net/animal-smiley-4960.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

fettpett
02-26-2012, 09:54 AM
I'm not great at politimath, so lets see how this works out...

Starting with 2013 for example
2013 - 3.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 2.7 trillion
2014 - 2.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 1.7 trillion
2015 - 1.7 trillion - 1 trillion = 0.7 trillion
2016 - 0.7 trillion - 1 trillion = -0.3 trillion
2017 - -0.3 trillion - 1 trillion = -1.3 trillion

Of course the more likely scenario will be
2012 was 3.7 trillion so for 2013 Congress requests 5 trillion, Santorum stalls for 4 trillion, 1 trillion cut
2013 was 4 trillion so for 2014 Congress requests 6 trillion, Santorum stalls for 5 trillion, another trillion cut
and so on and so on.

Remember that in the Potomac Swamp, a decrease in the projected increase is a cut even if you spend more than the previous year.

what budget? there hasn't been a budget since this asshole took office. going on 4 years. between expenditures and debt the Government owes/spends 15 trillion dollars, more than the GDP for the first time ever. cut 5 Trillion out and you're looking at 10 trillion in debt and expenditures.

Odysseus
02-26-2012, 12:57 PM
Ok....Santy said during the debate last night and on several other occassions he's going to cut 5 trillion dollars from the federal budget in 5 years.

The Federal budget in 2012 was $3.7 trillion. :rolleyes:

Why isn't anyone calling this guy out on this baloney (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/05/santorums-top-goals-5-trillion-in-cuts-entitlement-overhaul/)?


from his own website:


I took it to mean over five years.

Exactly. Budgeting is done in five year increments. What I assumed that Santorum meant is that he was going to reduce the expenditures over the next POM (Program Objective Memorandum) cycle by $5 Trillion.

noonwitch
02-27-2012, 09:32 AM
Ron Paul eats crayons dipped in sugar.





Ron Paul is the only republican campaigning in the city of Detroit today-not at the Detroit Economic club in safe downtown, but at the Historic Little Rock Baptist Church, a pretty much all black church in the hood.

Although our governor endorsed Romney, part of the reason Snyder is governor today is because he was the first republican who went down and campaigned in the hood in at least 20 years. It's not a bad primary strategy, at least in Michigan, as long as the candidate realizes that in the fall, all those voters are going back to Obama, although that wasn't the case in Snyder's general election because he got a lot of young people of all races to vote for him instead of the democrat running.

AmPat
02-28-2012, 12:58 PM
Detroit? Does anybody still live there?

Eupher
02-28-2012, 01:08 PM
Detroit? Does anybody still live there?

Yeah. Only one problem -- they're all dead.

Well, let me 'splain it this way. The crack houses in Highland Park and down close to Ford Field and the newer ballpark (forget the name offhand) are all dead. Miles and miles and miles of burned out, trashed, disease and filth-ridden wrecks.

Sigh. I was born there but I try not to say that too loudly.

djones520
02-28-2012, 03:02 PM
Yeah. Only one problem -- they're all dead.

Well, let me 'splain it this way. The crack houses in Highland Park and down close to Ford Field and the newer ballpark (forget the name offhand) are all dead. Miles and miles and miles of burned out, trashed, disease and filth-ridden wrecks.

Sigh. I was born there but I try not to say that too loudly.

It's not that horrible. My dad and I spent a couple hours driving through the city last time we met up. He grew up in downtown Detroit. Sure there are the parts of town I'd have felt a lot more comfortable packing a gun, but a lot of it wasn't bad.

I'd drive through anywhere in Detroit before I took a tour through East St. Louis any day of the week.

AmPat
03-05-2012, 12:32 PM
It's not that horrible. My dad and I spent a couple hours driving through the city last time we met up. He grew up in downtown Detroit. Sure there are the parts of town I'd have felt a lot more comfortable packing a gun, but a lot of it wasn't bad.

I'd drive through anywhere in Detroit before I took a tour through East St. Louis any day of the week.
That is probably much more safe as there are less people there.