• 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

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
25,611
Reaction score
21,092
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
House to Vote on "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Bill | C-SPAN

The House of Representatives will debate and vote on the Republican proposal to raise the debt ceiling. The measure, called the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act," would raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion but would be accompanied by mandatory spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment.

The measure, authored by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), would require up to $2 trillion of cuts to discretionary spending over the next ten years. It would also cap spending at under 20% of gross domestic product in a decade (spending is currently more than 23% GDP). Finally, it would include an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget.

The White House put out a statement saying it "strongly opposes" the Republican measure and said the President would veto it. "Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility," a statement by the Office of Management and Budget read.

Realizing that the House bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, Senate leadership is drafting what is considered a “fall-back” or “last-ditch” option, which could become the leading option in coming days as the August 2nd deadline to lift the debt ceiling nears and negotiations with the President to reach a “grand bargain” are elusive.

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.
 
Last edited:
that the House is wasting it's time on a bill that they know will not pass the Senate speaks for itself. It is not doing the nation's business, but wasting time on political posturing.
 
Big ****ing Waste of our ****ing Time.

That's what this is. It doesn't solve anything, gives political cover for the RINO's to say "See, we tried, now we have to compromise" and wouldn't SOLVE anything even IF Obama were stupid enough to sign it.
 
that the House is wasting it's time on a bill that they know will not pass the Senate speaks for itself. It is not doing the nation's business, but wasting time on political posturing.

As opposed to the Senate being serious and the White House being serious at this time.

:roll:
 
I'm not sure why setting spending limits and a balanced budget amendment are bad things....Many states have balance budget amendments and seem to do relatively well paying for services w/o screwing the pooch to do so.
 
Hello.. I just pooped all over the House for wasting our time... what more do you want?

A few crucifixions, a complete signed statement saying Conservatism is devil spawned, and an agreement to support all progressive theater, talking points and political hackery for the rest of your life.


Sign here in blood, thank you very much.
 
I'm not sure why setting spending limits and a balanced budget amendment are bad things....Many states have balance budget amendments and seem to do relatively well paying for services w/o screwing the pooch to do so.

That's for a separate discussion. Suffice it to say that many people don't think our freedom of action should be constrained when it comes to the budget. I'm one of those people.

Balanced Budget Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many Keynesian economics and New Keynesian economics economists believe that, while a large federal deficit has an adverse effect on the economy, deficit spending has significant benefits in times of recession.[citation needed] In 2003, approximately 90% of the members of the American Economic Association - [22] - agreed with the statement, "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the course of the business cycle, rather than yearly."[5]

But the real problem I have isn't with the balanced-budget amendment itself. It's that this measure is a total waste of ****ing time. House Repubs know that they're just purely making a statement with this. It's not going to go anywhere because its too skewed to get any bipartisan support. I mean, maybe if this was their opening offer in a negotiation, and they plan on tweaking it a bit to get more support so that it might actually pass, then maybe it'll get somewhere. But as it stands right now this is a total waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.
 
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.

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.
 
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.

My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's
 
Big ****ing Waste of our ****ing Time.

That's what this is. It doesn't solve anything, gives political cover for the RINO's to say "See, we tried, now we have to compromise" and wouldn't SOLVE anything even IF Obama were stupid enough to sign it.

Why is it a waste of time? It shows Obama and the democrats do not want a solution to our debt. A balanced budget would be a good start. It shows democrats do not want to be responsible with our money. It is time to cut thhem off.
 
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's

Having a balanced budget is not the same thing as passing a balanced budget amendment.

There are times when running a deficit is desirable and/or necessary and being legally barred from doing so can cause problems, especially in our hugely polarized political environment.
 
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.

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
 
Having a balanced budget is not the same thing as passing a balanced budget amendment.

There are times when running a deficit is desirable and/or necessary and being legally barred from doing so can cause problems, especially in our hugely polarized political environment.

States have to operate on a balanced budget it is time for the feds.

So do you do your personal finances like this?
 
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's

Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.
 
Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.

At some point somebody was going to have to stand up and say, "Wait a minute, we can't keep doing this." I think BOTH parties recognized the situation, but the republicans took advantage of the message quickly and made it their premise. It would have been pretty hard for the democrats to make it theirs given the spending levels over the last 2.5 years while we had dem controlled houses and the presidency. Is it a little shady that the message was/is politically expedient? Absolutely. But everything that happens is spurred or disregarded on the basis of it's ability to boost popularity and insure reelection. I'm not going to focus on the hypocrisy and rather will focus on the fact that somebody finally decided we should do something.

I'm willing to bet that half of those programs, policies, or departments we all look upon so fondly were funded or created primarily out of political expediency. This idea that anybody is looking out for the "middle class" is all spin. If it helps us that's a bonus, but it isn't a requirement.
 
Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.

Tell me why Obama and the democrats refuse to have a budget? This is about the Spend spend policy of Obama and the democrats with no responsibility as to how to pay down the out of control debt.

It is time they pass a budget and live within it.
 
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's

There is a huge difference. In the 1990's, the Republican's Contract for America forged a good consensus, and Clinton signed it. Both parties worked together. People give Clinton the credit for a balanced budget, but we would never have had one without the Republicans pushing for it. I give credit to the GOP. How different it is today. the GOP wastes 2 years pushing it's social agenda, then refuses to compromise a single inch on the budget. They don't realize that they only own the House, and not the Senate or the Presidency. Their "My way or the highway" approach is going to come back and bite them very hard in the ass. This is not the Gingrich House. This is the House of bat**** insane, and they are shooting themselves in both feet at this time.
 
Last edited:
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.

Umm...perhaps I'm missing something here but...WHY is this "cut, cap, balance" bill bad? Don't we need to raise the debt ceiling? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to cut spending? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to balance the budget? Doesn't this do this?

Jesus people, you've got a plan here that has everything in it that people want and its all of a sudden "bad"? WTH?
 
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.

One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things? :)


Tim-
 
Why is it a waste of time? It shows Obama and the democrats do not want a solution to our debt. A balanced budget would be a good start. It shows democrats do not want to be responsible with our money. It is time to cut thhem off.

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.
 
Umm...perhaps I'm missing something here but...WHY is this "cut, cap, balance" bill bad?

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.

Don't we need to raise the debt ceiling? Doesn't this do that?

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.

Don't we need to cut spending? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to balance the budget? Doesn't this do this?

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.

Jesus people, you've got a plan here that has everything in it that people want and its all of a sudden "bad"? WTH?

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

One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things? :)
Tim-

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom