- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,014
- Reaction score
- 5,743
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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
I agree with donsutherland1; merge the best of both bills and you have a winner. Both bills are very similar. Neither raises taxes, one assures a cap is placed on military spending where Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned ensuring a commitment to drawing down both wars, and both go out to 2021. In fact, if you removed the call for a Constitutional amendment from Boehner's bill and the extended and expanded authority to auction licenes for the EM spectrum from Reid's bill, both bills would be virtually identical.
I don't remember them being on board with TARP, Obamacare, Obama's Stimulus plan, cash for clunkers, etc. etc.
But really, it's all up to Obama whether he wants to sign some piece of legislation, or if he wants to be the first President to default on our obligations, starve government, or leave seniors in the cold because we didn't raise the upper tax bracket by 3% or somesuch.
This whole thing is just a song and dance routine. Anything that's going to cut the deficit "over 10 years" is a load of ****. They'll just put the spending back in later when the politics change. Plus, in 10 years, the deficit will probably have increased by another 10 trillion or so, so it doesn't make a difference anyway.
Always with the veiled insults, eh? Could you post a link to your statement, I'm not familiar with that quote.
Democrats don't really believe in cutting spending on anything at anytime. So Reid's plan defies the Democrat platform, therefore it cannot possibly be real. The whole purpose of this charade is so the American people will not witness Obama vetoing a real debt ceilling raising, spending cut measure. By stalling the House plan in the Senate, and Reid proposing some bull**** look-alike, he can protect the President from looking like an ass for vetoing a real spending cut measure by instead signing a fake. Does anyone really believe that Democrats want to cut spending, except possibly defense if they could get away with it? The mere fact that they are demogoguing over raising our debt ceiling proves this. Charging that Republicans want old people to eat dog food and die, proves they aren't serious about budget cuts. Democrats are in the fight for their very political lives here. Cut enough spending and the Republicans would be the only political party left in Congress. Frankly I don't think we should raise the debt ceiling, because I'm tired of all the spending.
That's fine - I was just pointing out that -- while not explicitly included -- the Boehner plan will see the same "cuts."I really don't see a problem with Reid's plan incorporating capping spending here.
Putting specific plans aside, I most certainly agree with you here.As to the debt limit extension timeline, I think the country would be much better off if the debt limit were extended beyond the next 6-months because we've had these short-term fixes before. We'll only be right back here again come January 2012. And judging on how contensious things are right now, I seriously doubt temperments or ideologies will change much between now and then. Besides, the markets needs some form of long-term stability as you can tell from all the complaints coming from both Wall Street, investors both foreign and domestic and business leaders.
I think it's worth pointing out that while cuts to the discretionary budget are very similar in monetary terms, the details pertaining to what gets cut are quite different (or at least that's my sense based on what commentary I've read - i've only just skimmed the bills myself).I agree with donsutherland1; merge the best of both bills and you have a winner. Both bills are very similar. Neither raises taxes, one assures a cap is placed on military spending where Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned ensuring a commitment to drawing down both wars, and both go out to 2021. In fact, if you removed the call for a Constitutional amendment from Boehner's bill and the extended and expanded authority to auction licenes for the EM spectrum from Reid's bill, both bills would be virtually identical.
As I said in the OP, spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the overall deficit. America wants these wars to draw down. We may be pulling troops out, but we still have a significant military presence in both theaters. As such, I'd think you'd want spending to be capped in this area if for no other reason than to show that the President is serious about bringing these wars to an end. I see this as being part of spending cuts in the Defense Department budget which both sides have said they support. Moreover, both sides recognize the financial burden these wars have had on our nation's economy. As such, both sides want these wars to end. I really don't see a problem with Reid's plan incorporating capping spending here.
Early next year, a new Congress will be seated with new members
You're missing the point. You want to blame the tea party for a debt ceiling mess brought about by policies they vociferously opposed.The Tea Party had no one in Congress when TARP was passed
And it wasn't Obama who starting attaching preconditions to the negotiations. The repubs started out by insisting that any bill to raise the debt ceiling MUST include spending reductions. They are still clinging desperately to that position, and will not compromise even though Obama and dems have said that they are willing to vote on a "stand alone" bill that raises the debt ceiling and does nothing else (ie no tax increases AND no spending cuts).
The repubs stubbornly insist on spending cuts are will not offer anything in return
Oh my, no! The whole situation is obviously the fault of those damn neocons!, -- wait scratch that --, it's obviously the fault of those damn tea partiers!.I think you're a little confused about who broke the car.
Good lord no! -- wait scratch that -- Good heavens no! -- wait, scratch that too -- Great Caesars Ghost! As responsible and brilliant as the Democrats are, it simply wouldn't be right for them to fix it. Not if Fairness has anything to say about it!But apparently you're upset that the Democrats aren't fixing it fast enough?
Considering that Boeher's plan was scored by the CBO first, I'll concede Reid's could be viewed as a "copy-cat", but that doesn't mean the Dems aren't serious about spending cuts. It just means he found a way to try and 1-up the House plan. And per the CBO, it is Boeher's plan that looks like the one calculated using "fuzzy math" because both baselines he used - March and January 2011 - came up short of his projected numbers. So, although Reid might have copied from Boehner, Reid's plan was closer to having the number jibe per the CBO.
If I were a member of Congress regardless of which chamber or which party, I'd be willing to vote for Boehner's plan if the timeline for reaching the debt limit as increased were pushed back to 2013. Not because 2012 is an election year, but because doing so would provide the markets breathing room and much needed certainty. As I've mentioned in atleast two other threads where past debt limits were raised (between 2003-2008), none were longer than 1-year. Furthermore, I've had some time to think about it and I could agree to freezing spending at 2010 levels as long as certain provisions apply, i.e., emergency situations (wars, natural/man-made disasters) or the ability to shift spending between programs, as needed, without going over the 2010 baseline, and the Bush tax cuts were to expire because the country could really use the revenue. The Republicans could even include a provision that ensures that all the new revenue went directly towards paying down the debt. Once the nation has a surplus, those revenues could go toward infrastructure projects or investing in new technology, etc.
Give up those provisions, and you get your spending freeze. I think that's fair.
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Oh my, no! The whole situation is obviously the fault of those damn neocons!, -- wait scratch that --, it's obviously the fault of those damn tea partiers!.
Good lord no! -- wait scratch that -- Good heavens no! -- wait, scratch that too -- Great Caesars Ghost! As responsible and brilliant as the Democrats are, it simply wouldn't be right for them to fix it. Not if Fairness has anything to say about it!
Hold on now... see at that guy over there? -- he definitely looks like he has some money he doesn't need. I'll bet he's a damn racist, too!
You're missing the point. You want to blame the tea party for a debt ceiling mess brought about by policies they vociferously opposed.
Oh my, no! The whole situation is obviously the fault of those damn neocons!, -- wait scratch that --, it's obviously the fault of those damn tea partiers!.
Good lord no! -- wait scratch that -- Good heavens no! -- wait, scratch that too -- Great Caesars Ghost! As responsible and brilliant as the Democrats are, it simply wouldn't be right for them to fix it. Not if Fairness has anything to say about it!
Hold on now... see at that guy over there? -- he definitely looks like he has some money he doesn't need. I'll bet he's a damn racist, too!
Oh my, no! The whole situation is obviously the fault of those damn neocons!, -- wait scratch that --, it's obviously the fault of those damn tea partiers!.
Good lord no! -- wait scratch that -- Good heavens no! -- wait, scratch that too -- Great Caesars Ghost! As responsible and brilliant as the Democrats are, it simply wouldn't be right for them to fix it. Not if Fairness has anything to say about it!
Hold on now... see at that guy over there? -- he definitely looks like he has some money he doesn't need. I'll bet he's a damn racist, too!
Yeah! I wonder why nobody ever thought of that before - we can all stand in a circle, hold hands, and just do what we all know is right... because we *care* - you are a bonafide genius!How about we stop trying to play partisan politics and admit that both parties are incompetent and neither one gives two ****s about the country?
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?