• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House to Vote on "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Bill

Earlier today Obama threatened he would veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill if it reaches his desk. Levin says the only problem with this is that, while he can veto the Cut and Cap part, if the Balanced Budget Amendment passes both the House and the Senate it goes to the states, not Obama. He’s got nothing to do with it.
But the Balance section is part of this bill. If Levin (I'm assuming Mark) had read the bill carefully, then he would have understood that Title III is the part of H.R. 2560 that makes any raising of the debt ceiling contingent on a Balanced Budget Amendment passing both chambers of Congress and then sent to the states for potential ratification.

I do not think President Obama will have to worry anyways since there is no way that a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever get through this Congress.
One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things? :)
Except that President Obama has never said that he would veto the Balanced Budget Amendment. If you can link any statement in which he has states he will veto the Balanced Budget Amendment, then by all means do so.

On the other hand, if you do want to talk about constitutional lightweights look at none other than Congressman Jason Cheffetz, the sponsor of this bill. So far in a single article I have seen Chaffetz claim that President Obama would have to explain why he would not sign a Balanced Budget Amendment and that the Republicans should call his bluff because there is no way that he would veto it.
 
Showing Obama and the democrats for the partisan hacks they are is not a waste of time. It is time to get rid of these SPEND,SPEND,SPEND political hacks

By replacing them with cut, cut, cut political hacks?

Meh, I just wish we could have a little balance for once.
 
sounds like posturing; no hope of this passing. it simply gives politicians a "look what i voted for" footnote for their campaign flyers.

a balanced budget amendment is interesting, but i would have to see a specific proposal to determine if it's feasible outside of the theoretical. some states have them. partisan politicians mostly choose to cut education and sell toll roads. a nation would have to do a lot better job deciding what to cut.
 
sounds like posturing; no hope of this passing. it simply gives politicians a "look what i voted for" footnote for their campaign flyers.

a balanced budget amendment is interesting, but i would have to see a specific proposal to determine if it's feasible outside of the theoretical. some states have them. partisan politicians mostly choose to cut education and sell toll roads. a nation would have to do a lot better job deciding what to cut.

It would likely garner a lot more support of it was a plain and simple balanced-budget amendment. Instead it's this:

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
 
ptif,

It's not a serious answer to the problem. The BBA can be over ridden by congress, it doesn't actually stop spending it just says it must be a "Balanced Budget" unless Congress decides otherwise. It doesn't end spending, it doesn't DO anything really.

AND it won't pass.

Think of this like a conservative version of the ERA. Sounds great till you realize it's rather a pointless exercise.


Better would be to keep passing budgets that greatly curtail actual no **** spending across the board, and let the Senate and the WH explain why we should keep spending more then we can afford.

No it will be a constitutional ammendment
 
It's not as simple as you make it sound. He can certainly veto the balanced-budget part of the bill. The thing is that it has to be approved by a 2/3 supermajority anyway to be sent to the states, which is the same amount you need to override the veto anyway.

This is all irrelevant though. It's never going to reach his desk in the first place, unless some serious tweaks are made in order to garner more bipartisan support.

So the democrats will show they do not want a balanced budget but want a blank check.

That shows much with the up coming election
 
But the Balance section is part of this bill. If Levin (I'm assuming Mark) had read the bill carefully, then he would have understood that Title III is the part of H.R. 2560 that makes any raising of the debt ceiling contingent on a Balanced Budget Amendment passing both chambers of Congress and then sent to the states for potential ratification.

I do not think President Obama will have to worry anyways since there is no way that a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever get through this Congress.
Except that President Obama has never said that he would veto the Balanced Budget Amendment. If you can link any statement in which he has states he will veto the Balanced Budget Amendment, then by all means do so.

On the other hand, if you do want to talk about constitutional lightweights look at none other than Congressman Jason Cheffetz, the sponsor of this bill. So far in a single article I have seen Chaffetz claim that President Obama would have to explain why he would not sign a Balanced Budget Amendment and that the Republicans should call his bluff because there is no way that he would veto it.

Obama officially threatens to veto Republicans' 'cut, cap and balance' bill - TheHill.com


The administration said the measure, which is not expected to move through the Senate, is unnecessary and unrealistic.

“Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”





The joke here is Obama administration saying move beyond politics. Obama should follow that advice
 
No it will be a constitutional ammendment

Yes, one that says "Congress can disregard this at will"

Another provision allows three-fifths of Congress to waive the amendment for expenditures related to a military conflict “that causes an imminent and serious threat to national security.” If you believe the Cold War or the War on Terror qualifies, this could have led to constant exceptions from 1947 to 1991, and from 2001 to perhaps the present.

The impulse behind the amendment is certainly laudable — to attack the debt problem at its root. But a strictly balanced budget is not important enough to be written into the Constitution. The difference between balance and a small deficit is meaningless in the long run; it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of protecting free speech or ending slavery.
Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment - Rich Lowry - National Review Online
 
It's bad because the people who wrote it and sponsored know it won't pass. It's all political theater, and a waste of ****ing time.

At least they are putting out ideas. And it seems a reasonable one to me. One that should pass. So why won't it pass? What is stopping it from passing?

No. Raising the debt ceiling, raises the debt ceiling. The people who sponsored this bill are attempting to make raising the debt ceiling contingent upon this bill being passed. Whatever their goals are, it's not going to happen anyway. It's all political showmanship.

Wait...if this were true then how can you say that it's just "showmanship" or that they "know it won't pass"? Obviously them making a "plan B" shows that this is not true. Or am I again missing something?

No, this bill mandates spending cuts, spending caps, and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution but is rather low on details as to how to get there.

Are you sure? Have you read the bill?

Sorry, that's just plain untrue. If you want my honest evaluation, read post #9 of this thread.

So you don't want a debt ceiling at all? Why? Everyone else is subject to a debt ceiling via caps on credit cards, etc etc...why shouldn't the government be subject to the same thing? Otherwise what is to stop them from spending 100 trillion dollars on a toilet seat? (note that was an obvious exaggeration with the toilet seat bit but gets the point across I hope.)
 
Obama officially threatens to veto Republicans' 'cut, cap and balance' bill - TheHill.com


The administration said the measure, which is not expected to move through the Senate, is unnecessary and unrealistic.

“Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility,” the White House said in its statement. “Increasing the federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.”
I am already well aware that President Obama has threatened to veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act were it able to make its way through both chambers of Congress. What I am looking for is any statement that he plans on vetoing any Balanced Budget Amendment. If such a quote cannot be found, then Hicup's comment that he is not a very intelligent constitutional scholar is rendered pointless and instead makes it look like Hicup does not have a clue what he was talking about.
 
House to Vote on "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Bill | C-SPAN



Just seems like a whole bunch of political theater to me. It's not gonna pass into legislation.

But the bigger picture is that there exists a contingent within Congress that see it as their duty to fundamentally change the nature of fiscal policy in Washington. Just IMHO, the new Tea Party candidates may have over-read their "mandate" from the 2010 midterms, much as the Dems did with the healthcare law in 2009-2010.

I think it is an attempt by them to save face with their base.
 
Look, the government being ineffective and wasting a huge amount of time on something that will go nowhere isn't necessarily a bad thing. The less government does the better IMO.

Because that's worked so well for us up to this point.................. :sun
 
I am already well aware that President Obama has threatened to veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act were it able to make its way through both chambers of Congress. What I am looking for is any statement that he plans on vetoing any Balanced Budget Amendment. If such a quote cannot be found, then Hicup's comment that he is not a very intelligent constitutional scholar is rendered pointless and instead makes it look like Hicup does not have a clue what he was talking about.

Vetoing this is the constitutional ammendment. Read the link.
 
I think it is an attempt by them to save face with their base.

It passed
JC_clap.gif
 
It passed
JC_clap.gif

And it has served its purpose if you are happy! That is all it was intended to do, to make their base think they tried, before they had to compromise with the Dems. :sun
 
And it has served its purpose if you are happy! That is all it was intended to do, to make their base think they tried, before they had to compromise with the Dems. :sun

No it will show the dems and Obama only care about raising the ceiling. The dems and Obama do not want a balanced budget. The proof is they have been lack in their duties for there has been no budget passed since Obama was elected.
 
No it will show the dems and Obama only care about raising the ceiling. The dems and Obama do not want a balanced budget. The proof is they have been lack in their duties for there has been no budget passed since Obama was elected.

Yep, the GOP's bill worked as long as you are still happy with them. Now you won't blame them when they compromise with the Dems because they convinced you they gave it their best shot. And to think some thought it was a waste of time! :sun
 
At least they are putting out ideas. And it seems a reasonable one to me. One that should pass. So why won't it pass? What is stopping it from passing?
Since when has American society become so acceptable of mediocrity? Personally, I would prefer politicians actually come up with good ideas rather than just coming up with crap like this and calling it a day.

The idea of capping and balancing the budget is bad for a multitude of reasons. Here is a short list I made off the top of my head:
-GDP for any given year can constantly be revised. What happens in a situation when the GDP is assumed to be X for the fiscal year, but it is actually less than what is predicted? How do you account for that overspending in future budgets?
-Add to that data for GDP lags by a year, so in order to enforce the spending cap Congress will most likely have to use the previous year's GDP. This will artificially lower the cap.
-There is no measure in this bill to override the balanced budget in times of recessions. When revenue will naturally fall, government spending will likewise have to fall. This has the potential to make the impact of future recessions much worse than they otherwise could be.
-Adding to my second point it takes away the government's ability to replace any declines in consumer demand during recessions.
-Sometimes running a deficit can be beneficial to long-term economic growth. The United States has practiced this since the days of Alexander Hamilton.

It will not pass because it is an ideologically driven bill. Maybe when Republicans figure out that they only control one half of one branch of government and write a bill that is capable of passing in the other chamber of Congress, then we can have a serious discussion about the worthiness of a given bill.

To clarify one of your earlier posts the passage of this bill does not mean that a rise in debt ceiling is a certainty. Under Title III of the bill the only condition under which the debt ceiling is raised is if both chambers of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. Anyone who follows politics knows full well there are not 290 votes in the House and there are definitely not 67 votes necessary in the Senate. So, technically, it is possible that a spending cap could be passed without a corresponding rise in the debt ceiling. That is yet another reason why this bill is a joke.

Wait...if this were true then how can you say that it's just "showmanship" or that they "know it won't pass"? Obviously them making a "plan B" shows that this is not true. Or am I again missing something?
I think everybody but the freshman Republicans understand that what they want to do will not pass. This is more or less an opportunity for Republicans leaders in the House to give the appearance that they are trying to appease the demands of the Tea Party, but were otherwise unsuccessful.

So far the only Republicans that have made anything that looks remotely like a Plan B are Senate Republicans with Mitch McConnell's plan. John Boehner and other House Republican leaders have stated that passage of that bill in the House would be almost impossible and that Boehner would need to rely heavily on Democrats to ensure that it would pass.

Right now, from my perspective, House Republicans have no backup plan if this bill fails in the Senate or the President vetoes it. I think they feel that they can win the PR battle against the President and avoid having the American people blame them for the potential economic disaster that could follow if the debt ceiling is not raised.

Are you sure? Have you read the bill?
Yes, I have read the bill. Indeed, StillBallin75 is right that the bill lacks details about specific cuts that have to be made. All this bill does is set spending limits for next year's budget, but in no way says what those cuts will be in order to meet the spending limits that the bill calls for.

Here is a link to the bill so you can examine it yourself:Read The Bill: H.R. 2560 - GovTrack.us

So you don't want a debt ceiling at all? Why? Everyone else is subject to a debt ceiling via caps on credit cards, etc etc...why shouldn't the government be subject to the same thing? Otherwise what is to stop them from spending 100 trillion dollars on a toilet seat? (note that was an obvious exaggeration with the toilet seat bit but gets the point across I hope.)
I will come out and say that I would have no problem completely doing away with the debt ceiling. I find it senseless that Congress has the ability to pass spending bills and yet does not have to ensure that the Executive Branch has the means necessary to pay the bills that both branches agreed to.
 
And it has served its purpose if you are happy! That is all it was intended to do, to make their base think they tried, before they had to compromise with the Dems. :sun

Compromise on what? What plan have the dems put forth?
 
Compromise on what? What plan have the dems put forth?

The "plan" apparently is some speech Obama gave... that's their plan. Of course this morning Obama throws in behind the Gang of 6 who actually WROTE DOWN a plan and didn't just levy more platitudes in a speech. More shifting of responsibility and work by Obama to others. I'm guessing someone else will have to do all of Obama's work for him so he can just defer to it and go get in some swings on the green.
 
The "plan" apparently is some speech Obama gave... that's their plan. Of course this morning Obama throws in behind the Gang of 6 who actually WROTE DOWN a plan and didn't just levy more platitudes in a speech. More shifting of responsibility and work by Obama to others. I'm guessing someone else will have to do all of Obama's work for him so he can just defer to it and go get in some swings on the green.

The Gang of Six plan only cuts 3.7 trillion over 10 years. We'll add half of that to the debt this year. I'm glad the senate is actually working on a proposal, but I'm not ready to break out the party favors.
 
The Gang of Six plan only cuts 3.7 trillion over 10 years. We'll add half of that to the debt this year. I'm glad the senate is actually working on a proposal, but I'm not ready to break out the party favors.

I know... and the issue isn't being addressed. 3.7 Trillion in 10 years is nothing without a balanced budget amendment that prevents Congress and the current or future Presidents from continuing to run up the debt. Anything less is to me, just more theater.
 
I know... and the issue isn't being addressed. 3.7 Trillion in 10 years is nothing without a balanced budget amendment that prevents Congress and the current or future Presidents from continuing to run up the debt. Anything less is to me, just more theater.

Sad thing is, this is probably the bill that will pass, and the republicans will probably end up losing ground with the public in the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom