The Barbarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,265
- Reaction score
- 277
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Maybe we can. I'd hope that we could, but I'd rather that our government would not take that chance. That's the primary reason a balanced budget amendment with such restrictions would never pass. Besides, you say that now but just as we didn't see this economic chaos happening just a mere six years ago, whose to say we won't run into a similar problem some 10-20 years from now? Moreover, the government still has to purchase from the open market. Even our current contract bidding process relies on the cost of materials from private companies who themselves work within the framework of a free market. IN short, the cost of materials is bond to go up over time. We may take the lowest bidder, but parts still cost and their cost are subject to the free market system. Cost have been going up lately, right?
I think he didn't try that because the actual cuts made with a spending freeze are more severe than the plan he has now and would never pass Harrys senate. The only one passing plans is the House, so I don't see how you can say that they are moving the goal posts, unless you mean that they are getting closer every time the House passes a new plan. The current plan is less cuts than any previous one. And still no new taxes, so nothing has changed there either.
okay so you are in favor of no lid on government spending at all .. just keep borrowing whatever we need ... and keep right on spending as we have been ?
Don't get it twisted. I'm for the government doing everything it can to get their spending under control as long as they do so in a responsible manner. Part of that means not backing yourself in a corner in case of an emergency, i.e., a war, natural or man-made disaster, i.e., another 9/11 or Katrina. What I would like is for people with a conscience to do as the Constitution says and abid by the very laws they right and following the rules in their respective chambers. If they do that and stop kneeling to lobbyist and/or corporate interest, our government if not Congress would be so much better off.
I know, I know...sounds very much like the Tea Party, right? Only problem is they're acting more like the radical bunch than the responsible ones.
Put people of integrity in office who aren't affraid to stand on priciple and follow the laws of the land - the very laws they write under rules they set to government by while in chambers .
Boehner has a plan that can pass both the house and the senate...
Sounds just like what the tea party people are doing. Of course you realize that the only reason we are talking about cutting anything and not just raising the limit with a "clean" vote is because of the tea party.
Sounds just like what the tea party people are doing. Of course you realize that the only reason we are talking about cutting anything and not just raising the limit with a "clean" vote is because of the tea party.
Sen. Reid's plan cuts more over the same period and targets pretty much the same areas.
Boehner's plan will probably pass in the House, now that the Speaker is putting the squeeze on potentially intransigent elements. There remains some risk of failure, as perhaps only a tiny handful of Democrats may vote for the plan. In the Senate, its prospects are likely doomed. Politico revealed, "Fifty-three senators, 51 Democrats and two independents, signed a letter to Boehner on Wednesday vowing to oppose the House bill."
Senator Reid's plan will probably pass in the Senate, but fail in the House. However, it is not implausible that once the Boehner plan fails in the Senate, that Reid's plan won't be put to a vote. Instead, intensive negotiations that would aim to build on the overlap between the two bills and reconcile them into a single piece of legislation could commence. My guess remains that a $1 trillion -$2 trillion savings package (largely backloaded, mainly discretionary spending reductions from the baseline and no tax hikes) will be tied to the debt ceiling increase. So long as CBO indicates that the projected savings match the hike in the debt ceiling, the bill will come to a vote. If it emerges from the Congress, the President will sign it. It will be perhaps the only chance to avert a possible crisis and if it commands bipartisan support, the President will not isolate himself by vetoing it.
The teabaggers dont know what they're talking about. They want the govt to keeps its' hands off their Medicare :lol:
Both plans are undesirable, but to get the facts straight:Nice try, but the fact remains Sen. Reid's plan cuts more from the deficit than Speaker Boehners' AND it does so over the same timeframe WITHOUT adding tax increases. Now, those who are arguing, "but the spending cuts include eliminating cost to both wars which were going to get reduced anyway," I say, "And?"
The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which would raise the debt cap by $2.7 trillion, would reduce deficits by $2.2 trillion.
In terms of spending, the CBO estimates that the Reid plan it was given would cut $1.8 trillion.
But that's because the Reid plan takes credit for cutting $1 trillion in war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those savings can only be claimed if one assumes the U.S. engagement there will continue at full throttle for the next decade.
I don't remember them being on board with TARP, Obamacare, Obama's Stimulus plan, cash for clunkers, etc. etc.The Tea Party is in fact why we're risking the first downgrade of our credit rating in 100 years as they've forced a nonsensical showdown over the debt limit and boxed in republicans with silly pledges. Spending cuts were inevitable with or without the tea party.
Can you link the proposal? Better yet, the CBO analysis.And Obama was proposing debt reduction of over $4 trillion. But if Obama layed a golden egg on the White House lawn republicans would accuse him of trying to undercut gold miners....
Can you link the proposal? Better yet, the CBO analysis.
If not, he may as well be promising to lay golden eggs.
Wouldn't support what? Again, do you have some kind of link to this proposal?No, the deal was never finalized. There wasn't much point in doing that when Boehner told him point blank that he wouldn't support it and it couldn't pass the House.
Wouldn't support what? Again, do you have some kind of link to this proposal?
The Tea Party is in fact why we're risking the first downgrade of our credit rating in 100 years as they've forced a nonsensical showdown over the debt limit and boxed in republicans with silly pledges. Spending cuts were inevitable with or without the tea party.
The teabaggers dont know what they're talking about. They want the govt to keeps its' hands off their Medicare :lol:
Both plans are undesirable, but to get the facts straight:
Reid's plan purports to cut 2.2 trillion but puts us 2.7 trillion further in debt, so it's really a $500 billion dollar spending plan that would cover Obama through 2012.
Boehner's (revised) plan cuts 917 billion to put us 900 billion further in debt. It provides next to nothing in real cuts, but only takes us into next Spring, when he'll ask for an additional 1.8 trillion in cuts to raise the ceiling.
1 trillion (45%) of Reid's "cuts" are attributed to "winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." That's going to happen anyway, so if you factor that out, as the CBO did - Reid's plan reduces outlays by $750 billion, whereas the CBO predicted an 851 billion dollar reduction for Boehner's plan.CNN: Reid debt ceiling plan comes up short - Jul. 27, 2011
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?