Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Stephen Green

Bio

March 12, 2013 - 12:58 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Time to play another exciting game of Find! The! Cuts! Whether you’re a part of our studio audience or just watching from home, it’s the most exciting game you can play with Senator Patty Murray’s (D-Spendsylvania) new Senate budget. So let’s pull up the scorecard and see what we can find:

The $975 billion in spending cuts include $240 billion in savings from the end of the Afghanistan war and $242 billion in reduced interest payments, according to a source.

Remember, that’s $975,000,000,000 in “cuts” over the next ten years, or roughly the size of just this year’s totally real new debt. But now let’s look at the two biggest items, war and interest payments.

The savings from the Afghanistan War assume we were going to fight there indefinitely, even though the commander-in-chief (remember him?) said we’d be out in 2014. That’s like saying, “I’m going to spend 242 dollars on this new stereo I’ve had my eye on.” But then changing your mind and claiming that you’d saved $242. I can save us five trillion dollars right now, immediately, by promising to terraform and colonize each of Jupiter’s moons with clones of Hugh Grant, then canceling the program due to “extreme silliness.”

Then there’s the $240,000,000,000 in reduced interest payments on the existing debt. The only proper response to that is “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,” followed by wiping away tears of pure blood. Interest payments will go nowhere but up, especially if Rosy Scenario somehow comes through with her promise of future robust growth. Those “savings” are, again, calculated by estimating how much higher they’d be if we went ahead with Project Hugh Grant, and then scrapping it because it’s just too difficult to obtain his DNA without first gaining access to a transvestite hooker.

Add up the fake savings for a total of $482,000,000,000, which we then subtract from the promised $975,000,000,000, for “real” savings of only $493,000,000,000. Again, spread out over ten years for an average “cut” of under $50,000,000,000 a year — or barely more than half of what the sequester cut this year alone.

And, uh, by the way, Murray’s budget eliminates the actual, real-life sequester savings to make room for her pretend Democrat savings.

But we aren’t quite done yet.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
There you go again, Green, using unfair rhetorical devices such as facts and math in your argument. If you're not careful, you'll wind up stooping to the use of logic.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Cool. I now have an estimated $1500 repair bill for my truck. But because I didn't go out and buy a $25,000 new vehicle, I just saved $23,500!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (19)
All Comments   (19)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Why are creatures such as Murray allowed to remain in office ? She has obviously separated herself from reality,making yet another strong case for residential psychiatric treatment for all progressives.Maybe even re-education camps.

Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights.Carry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Excellent article. And good point to john trainor when wondering about the people that sent Murray to office. All of these idiot politicians didn't just wander into a building and sit down at a desk. Their respective voters sent them there and usually over and over again. I don't call them low-information voters, but WTF voters.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I feel so much safer knowing Patty Murray is running things. It could have been worse, say a chimpanzee. But Patty can dress herself, the chimp can't, it makes all the difference in the world. I wonder who does her reading for her, I wonder more about the people who have sent her to the Senate 3 times. That's progressivism for you.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Murray, another stupid, ugly Dem congresswoman.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Please allow me to improve slightly on your "stereo purchase" analogy.

In my version you actually buy a stereo this year for $242. Next year---and every year thereafter----you don't buy a stereo because you already have one. Yet, under Dem rules, every year you claim to save $242 (plus inflation) for NOT buying a stereo. THat's how they think.

It's also how they arrive at their claim that Obama's spending has grown more slowly than any other president. To do so, they start with 2009 O's first year....and a year they call "Bush's last budget" even though Dems only gave Bush a half-year budget that year. In the 2nd half of the year Dems piled on Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, the augo bailout and other expensive programs on top of TARP. Thus 2009 was an OUTRAGEOUS year. And almost everyone assumed it was one-off spending. But it never went away. As we saw above, Dems made 2009 their new baseline and any less spending is declared a "deep cut" threatening widows and children.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It depe4nds what the definition of 'is' is." - Clinton

So, I guess it depends on what the definition of "cut" is. Perhaps that is the approach we ned to take. The Dems purposely misuse the language, so we need to take away that tool. Make sure the words get defined, and they will become helpless.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We just saved $850,000 trillion by not building the Death Star!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Until we all change the terms of the discussion, we are never going to win this game. It is simple enough, just ask two questions instead of one.
Question 1, what are your priorities, from the top to the bottom
Question 2, how much of a deficit do you want this year.

If you get a politician to answer both questions, you chop off enough of his bottom priorities to give the deficit number he says he wants and the budget cutting exercise is over.

If the politician won't answer question 1, he's an immature poser, an amateur who won't do a basic responsibility of the job. What do you mean you won't set priorities?

If the politician won't answer question 2, again, not professional and not worthy of the job in a way that even low information voters will understand.

But even hard core conservatives don't talk like this, don't demand this. What are we afraid of?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There you go again, Green, using unfair rhetorical devices such as facts and math in your argument. If you're not careful, you'll wind up stooping to the use of logic.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why, I never!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Fear not, I reported Bill's vile calumny via the "report abuse" button.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ha! I just reported him too.

Oh, wait... I hit the "like" button by accident. Oh, well, maybe next time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Senate Democrats are criminals....
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All