Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.

    From MSNBC.com:

    An increasing number of House members yielded to Speaker John Boehner’s blunt command to line up Wednesday behind his budget bill even as his staff moved frantically to alter it in an attempt to resolve the looming fiscal crisis. Congressional leaders alternately voiced optimism, determination and a haggard frustration as they struggled to make both the dollars and the votes add up.

    The Congressional Budget Office, which on Monday night forced the Republican leaders back to the drawing board by ruling that their plan fell short of their promises, came back Tuesday with a verdict on Mr. Boehner’s latest revisions, declaring that they would cut spending by $917 billion over ten years. His plan would now raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion, requiring another set of decisions in just a few months.

    "CBO’s analysis confirms that the spending cuts are greater than the debt hike – affirming that the House GOP bill meets the critical test House Republicans have said they will insist upon for any bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling," said Kevin Smith, the communications director for Mr. Boehner.
    So, we're clear on what this is saying...

    "Speaker Boehner discovered that although his debt limit plan doesn't cut as much from the deficit as the Democrat's plan does as proposed by Senator Reid which was also scored by the CBO, atleast they confirm that the amount of spending cuts his plan proposes are sufficient to raise the debt limit and allow the Treasury to pay the bills. So, he rallied to stand firm with him to save the day! HURRAY!!"

    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 point is, the cost to both wars are part of the deficit and atleast one is still ongoing. So, yes, the cost of funding both wars will be reduced because we're bringing some of our troops home, but the fact that we're reducing troop force levels doesn't erase the fact hat there still will be costs associated with funding the ongoing war effort. Let's not pretend that a cease fire has been announced or either war has officially been declared over. As such, you should be glad the costs for funding either will be decreasing, not getting all glume over it.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-27-11 at 10:18 PM.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.

    From MSNBC.com:



    So, we're clear on what this is saying...

    Speaker Boehner discovered that although his debt limit plan doesn't cut as much from the deficit as the Democrat's plan does that Senator Reid as also scored by the CBO, atleast they confirm that the amount of spending cuts his plan proposes was sufficient to raise the debt limit and allow the Treasury to pay the bills.

    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 point is, the cost to both wars are part of the deficit and atleast one is still ongoing. So, yes, the cost of funding both wars will be reduced because we're bringing some of our troops home, but the fact that we're reducing troop force levels doesn't erase the fact there still will be costs associated with funding the ongoing war effort. Let's not pretend that a cease fire has been announced or either war has officially been declared over. As such, you should be glad the costs for funding either will be decreasing, not getting all glume over it.
    The CBO Scoring system would also, if Bohner were to propose freezing all spending, score that as a 9 trillion dollar cut.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #3
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    The CBO Scoring system would also, if Bohner were to propose freezing all spending, score that as a 9 trillion dollar cut.
    Which you know would never get through Congress. So, what's your point?

  4. #4
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Which you know would never get through Congress. So, what's your point?
    So basically what you are saying .. is the democratically contolled congress is unwilling to bend

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    One more point to add...

    Okay, so Speaker Boehner may be able to rally the troops behind him. Fine. But Sen. Reid didn't have to go through all that. The Democrats were firmly behind him pretty much from the start. Plus, the fact that there's been no comfirmation that he has enough Republican support at present and that he needed an outside agency to "give him an out" which he could sell to his side speaks directly to his leadership.

    As the saying goes, "Thank you, come again."

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Are these actual cuts that take place right now? If so, it's fine for providing more time to come up with a more comprehensive plan. If they are just "promises" to make cuts at some point in the future like Reids plan, then "No".

  7. #7
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    The CBO Scoring system would also, if Bohner were to propose freezing all spending, score that as a 9 trillion dollar cut.
    because non-existent plans are so much better than real ones
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    So basically what you are saying .. is the democratically contolled congress is unwilling to bend
    On a $9 TRILLION spending freeze!?! Do you have any idea long it would take this country to pay that off? Atleast the next five years and that's if the government devotes every dollar - ALL $2 TRILLION in income tax revenue it collects annually - toward that debt. Things are bad right now. Can you imagine how bad they'd get if every goverment program in this country shut down for that long? You're talking cutting the government beyond the bare bones. I don't care how much one wants to eliminate the deficit, the country would never support such a measure.

  9. #9
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    On a $9 TRILLION spending freeze!?! Do you have any idea long it would take this country to pay that off? Atleast the next five years and that's if the government devotes every dollar - ALL $2 TRILLION in income tax revenue it collects annually - toward that debt. Things are bad right now. Can you imagine how bad they'd get if every goverment program in this country shut down for that long? You're talking cutting the government beyond the bare bones. I don't care how much one wants to eliminate the deficit, the country would never support such a measure.
    You should revisit the term spending freeze. It means no growth in spending, not no spending.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Are these actual cuts that take place right now? If so, it's fine for providing more time to come up with a more comprehensive plan. If they are just "promises" to make cuts at some point in the future like Reids plan, then "No".
    If you're referring to the caps on spending for war-related activities, wasn't it you're guys who continued to insist on ending the war in Afghanistan? Was it not your side who said we're spending too much over there especially since killing OBL and that we should get out ASAP? Wouldn't you want to ensure our government pays as little as possible on a war our country wants us to end ASAP? Wouldn't you want to ensure we spend only up to a certain amount an no more? Hey, aren't you guys the ones who want a Balanced Budget Amendment, a tool to insist that we don't spend over a certain amount? That amount being no more than we take in?

    Seems to me if you're insisting on spending less on an unpopular item or program, you'd want to atleast want to keep that spending in check. I mean, isn't that what the Balanced Budget Amendment, as proposed, all about? Controlling your spending costs?

    Controll government spending...?...a Balanced Budget Amendment to controll federal spending...?...a cap on war-related activities in two war zones - three if you count Libya...?...reduced spending...?...reducing the deficit...?

    I don't know, folks. Seems Sen. Reid's bill gives the country exactly what it wants.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •