Spending Cuts Seen as Step, Not as Cure (Does Not Actually Reduce Federal Spending) (!!?&?%#!!!)

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending.

By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today.

Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.

That is the reason that the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s and its rivals still are threatening to remove the United States from their lists of risk-free borrowers, although the other agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both said Tuesday that they would watch and wait for now.

It is also the reason that many conservative Republicans refused to vote for the agreement, calling it a grossly inadequate answer to a pressing problem.

Proponents of the deal counter that it is an important first step, constrained by the political realities of divided government. Republicans want to reduce the debt solely through cuts in spending, while Democrats favor a mix of cuts and increased revenues.

Both parties are pointing to the 2012 elections as a national referendum on how to proceed.

“Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Mr. Obama said Sunday in announcing the agreement.

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending.
By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today.
Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.
That is the reason that the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s and its rivals still are threatening to remove the United States from their lists of risk-free borrowers, although the other agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both said Tuesday that they would watch and wait for now.
It is also the reason that many conservative Republicans refused to vote for the agreement, calling it a grossly inadequate answer to a pressing problem.

“The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t stop us from going over the fiscal cliff,” Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, wrote Monday in an open letter explaining his opposition. “At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 m.p.h. to going over it at 60 m.p.h..”
======================================================================================================================
This little tidbit about the budget, the future of federal spending enrages me like nothing else. That the unabated spending will continue, the budget deficits get much larger than it is today due to the cost of healthcare and no one seems to be aware of it, let alone address it? This is mind-bloggling in the extreme.

Are there any Freepers out there who can make any sense of what is going on?

It seems as if they in fact did kick the can way, way, way far down the road, we can't even see it to remember it.

“There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday:”

What is going on is that after the fact, some NY Times columnist thinks he is telling us something new? What does he think the tea party “terrorists” have been screaming about? Where was this puke BEFORE Obama signed this peice of garbage?

Journalistic mal-practice. Thats whats going on. More like malfeasance with malice aforethought.

Exactly so. If the MSM would have told the truth instead of lying with extreme prejudice for the last couple of years, this insane bill would never have passed. Of course Obama and the Democrat party would be history.

The MSM is the real problem.

This is mind-bloggling in the extreme.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Have we forgotten that Obama's last budget proposal called for "trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?"

Those deficits not only included the repeal of the dreaded "Bush Tax Cuts", they amount to at least $10T in deficits over 10 years. Even Rand Paul's "horrible $4T in budget cuts over 10 years" passed by the house last January could not balance the federal budget.

The entire discussion was nothing more than kicking the can down the road. In other words, "business as usual in D.C."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.