Does this bill really cut or is it a reduction in the spending plan?

[SilentBull]

I read that this bill cuts a measly $900 billion in 10 years. Is that $900 billion even a real cut? Ron Paul has suggested that even the $900 billion isn't real, and that it's just a reduction in the plan. I was writing an article and want to make sure I get this part right.

[wgadget]

It's a decrease in the growth of spending. The spending will continue upward.

[SilentBull]

Thanks. That's what I thought. Just making sure I am accurate in my explanation.

[SilentBull]

Is this detail available anywhere? I haven't read any details on this.

[specsaregood]

It's a decrease in the growth of spending. The spending will continue upward.

Well technically it is just a promise to decrease it, since they can't hold future congresses to the agreement anyways. So basically it is nothing more than a debt increase.

[Zippyjuan]

Future budgets ("cuts" or reduction in future spending increases) will not be required to follow this deal. It is really meaningless as far as reducing debt- now or in the future.

[kpitcher]

I heard some CNN yesterday and Wolf and others were making a point that the debt deal was a reduction in future spending, not actual cuts. It was nice to hear it so plainly worded.

[specsaregood]

I heard some CNN yesterday and Wolf and others were making a point that the debt deal was a reduction in future spending, not actual cuts. It was nice to hear it so plainly worded.

Which means it is no reduction unless future congresses agree to it.

[pcosmar]

Does this bill really cut or is it a reduction in the spending plan?

Neither.
It is a "shell game"
Or possibly Three Card Monte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-card_Monte

[Maximus]

Annual spending increases dramatically every year, we just are spending slightly less than was originally planned.

[Zippyjuan]

Which means it is no reduction unless future congresses agree to it.

The real action will be over the next budget which will be written by the Republican controlled House of Representiatives (all spending bills originate there). How much and on what will they actually propose to cut (rather than a vague "$800 billion" or however much over ten years (that comes to only $80 billion a year in reductions on a $1.3 trillion deficit- what will they cut and by how much? What and by how much will get increased?). It is a lot harder when you are forced to get more specific.

[GunnyFreedom]

Here is a place that has a good chart. Beware that the two charts are missing their zeroes, a classic method of making charts appear distorted, but in this case I don't think the missing zeroes have much effect. You may notice that as a function of "Percent of GDP" there is in fact a slight cut. Certainly not in real dollars. It's just enough where people who want to spin this could put the second chart in their minds while talking about cuts and not feel like they are outright lying. Clearly it's in no way shape or form a cut of any kind, but they did do enough to provide themselves cover in the unlikely event that the media should actually press the issue.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/580096/201108011834/Painful-Cuts-Anything-But.htm


ETA: bear in mind also that we have since learned that GDP growth is WAY weaker than anticipated, so that will tend to give the second chart more of an up-angle on the yellow dataset.

[Zippyjuan]

A good article with the charts too. Thanks for the link!