Nate Silver: "Cuts Heavily Weighted Toward Defense Spending"

[ClarkUSA]

But given that Democrats were willing to accede to the constraints demanded by Republicans, they were able to exert a lot of control over the substance of the cuts. In particular, the first round of cuts will include $350 billion in defense savings, while the second round would include between $500 and $600 billion in defense cuts if no bipartisan agreement is reached... the bottom line is that the deal will take a big bite out of the Pentagon’s budget. Close to half of the overall cuts, not counting interest savings, will come from defense and related areas.

This ought to be a big deal for Democrats, since many of them are favorably disposed toward cuts in the defense budget... The other implication comes from the effect this might have on the bipartisan panel. If its recommendations are not agreed to — or if it can’t come to an agreement in the first place — $1.5 trillion in cuts would be triggered, half of which would come from defense.

If you’re a Democrat and you must accede to $1.5 trillion in cuts — and that’s literally the situation that Democrats will find themselves in if the deal passes through Congress — it’s going to be hard to do better than this $1.5 trillion in cuts. They are very heavily loaded with defense cuts, while containing few changes to entitlement programs or to programs which benefit the poor.

So Democrats will have very little incentive to vote for the panel’s recommendations unless they include tax increases. Does that mean that Republicans will agree to tax increases? Perhaps the Republicans on the committee will consider them — but it is unlikely that rank-and-file in the House will give their sign-off.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-print-on-the-debt-deal/?hp

[daa]

1. So what is this Silver ever correct about?? nt

[ClarkUSA]

2. Read up on his bio. The man is a legend in political circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

[daa]

4. Here is my point

it says "Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism":"
yet, every time I read him he is saying repugs are right or everybody loves Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

6. What does he say exactly that you disagree with?

Last night, he overreacted like so many without making a deeper analysis, but in the clear light of day, I give him credit for taking a closer look and crunching the numbers, which he does better than anyone else outside of the CBO and WH.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

3. So in other words, the only guaranteed military cuts are 350 billion dollars,

Which amounts to 35 billion a year, or approximately 3.5%.

The military gets more than that every year in automatic inflation compensation.

Big whoop.

[indurancevile]

5. the defense budget went up 12.7% last year. so they'll come out ahead.

[WCGreen]

7. And that money would come from the already scheduled wind down,,,

in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ClarkUSA]

12. 'The “triggers,” or fail-safe plans, heavily favor Democrats.'

If the bi-partisan commission fails to agree to a balanced plan – or Congress fails to pass a balanced plan – the Defense budget alone will take half the spending cuts ($600-750 billion). This trigger gives Democrats significant leverage...

Of primary importance to Obama’s base, all entitlement benefits and many programs for the poor are exempt from current cuts and the trigger cuts.

http://liberalgal.blog.com/2011/08/01/3-big-victories-for-obama-dems-in-debt-ceiling-fight-–-republicans-just-trying-to-save-face/#comment-165

[Bandit]

8. While six hundred billion in cuts for Defense is a good thing IMO

It doesn't come close to the devastation six hundred billion does to the other discretionary items being cut...Sixty billion a year really is not that much for the Military Industrial Complex. It won't even get it back to where it was during Clinton's term.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Note that there are no cuts until 2013 so a future Democratic-controlled Congress can change policy.

President Obama knows that, which is why he pushed for it and got it.

Working for Democrats to achieve that goal is so important. We need to take back the House as well as keep the Senate and WH.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WI_DEM]

13. That and putting around another vote after the election is all that Dems got

the rest is a straight GOP victory.

[ClarkUSA]

14. "3 Big Victories for Obama & Dems in Debt Ceiling Fight – Republicans Just Trying to Save Face"

The devil is in the details: http://tinyurl.com/obamadebtdealvictory

[ClarkUSA]

16. *kick* for the evening crowd!

:kick:

[TheWraith]

17. Good to see Nate sobered up after looking more closely. nt