• 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!

Boehner issues blunt warning to debt dissenters

O

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
13,005
Reaction score
5,739
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
Click to expand...

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!!" :roll:

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:
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

The CBO Scoring system would also, if Bohner were to propose freezing all spending, score that as a 9 trillion dollar cut.
 
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."
 
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".
 
The Barbarian said:
So basically what you are saying .. is the democratically contolled congress is unwilling to bend
Click to expand...

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.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should revisit the term spending freeze. It means no growth in spending, not no spending.
 
1Perry said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Welch Pushes ‘Clean’ Debt Ceiling Vote : Roll Call News

Welch Pushes ‘Clean’ Debt Ceiling Vote

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) is advocating for a “clean” debt ceiling bill with just days to go until the nation hits a projected default deadline, even though a similar measure failed in May.

The legislation counts more than 100 co-sponsors, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) signed on to a letter from Welch encouraging colleagues to support the measure, according to spokesman Scott Coriell.

The Vermont Democrat’s proposed $2 trillion debt limit increase isn’t tied to a deficit reduction package, making it a non-starter for House Republicans. But Welch said he is nevertheless pressing ahead because “America is now on the doorstep of default.”
Click to expand...

The party of no strikes again!
 
megaprogman said:
You should revisit the term spending freeze. It means no growth in spending, not no spending.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it means. It means restricting spending to only what the country takes in each year and the country would never go for it. Why? Because you never know what befalls the nation. Consider all the natural disasters that have occurred just this year alone. If we froze spending to such a narrow limit, we'd never be able to responde to such emergencies. You simply can't plan for such costs.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not bare bones it's just not increasing any spending across the board, at CURRENT LEVELS OF SPENDING.

We're spending more then we can afford now...

Neither the Reid or Bohner, or Obama or any OTHER PLAN actually cuts a damned thing, all they are proposing are mild cut backs to projected spending INCREASES.

What part of that doesn't anyone get??
 
MrVicchio said:
The point is the scoring system is ****ED UP.
Click to expand...

Interesting...

So, let's get this straight...

The CBO's scoring is fine as long as it "throws your side a bone" and gives your guy something he can bring his guys in line and rally behind him, but it's not okay when it confirms that the other guy's debt limit plan reduces spending more than your guy's plan?

Gotcha! :thumbs: (....:roll:...:thumbdown)
 
sangha said:
Welch pushes clean debt ceiling vote
Click to expand...

a clean lift?

LOL!

you couldn't get more than two dozen senators

barack the slasher himself aint even goin there

must get lonely in leningrad
 
Objective Voice said:
I know exactly what it means. It means restricting spending to only what the country takes in each year
Click to expand...

no, sir, that's not what a spending freeze does

you surprise me
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not bare bones it's just not increasing any spending across the board, at CURRENT LEVELS OF SPENDING.

We're spending more then we can afford now...

Neither the Reid or Bohner, or Obama or any OTHER PLAN actually cuts a damned thing, all they are proposing are mild cut backs to projected spending INCREASES.

What part of that doesn't anyone get??
Click to expand...

I get that neighter side were proposing such a thing for good reason - because they knew such a measure would never get passed!

I get that your side is now trying to move the goal post to curry favor.

I get that your's is a desparate attempt to come in and save the day!

I have a copy of both plans and you're right. Both are near identical. But that doesn't erase the fact that the Democrat's plan not only cuts more from the debt, it also has wide Democrate support and could very likely gain enough support in the House to pass. And your side can't stand that! They'll say and do anything at this point to win!
 
Objective Voice said:
I know exactly what it means. It means restricting spending to only what the country takes in each year and the country would never go for it. Why? Because you never know what befalls the nation. Consider all the natural disasters that have occurred just this year alone. If we froze spending to such a narrow limit, we'd never be able to responde to such emergencies. You simply can't plan for such costs.
Click to expand...

So in you opinion the fact that we have increased spending just over the last three years by nearly 800 billion dollars .. . that you don't think we can live within that structure ??? If thats the case … then it's true .. this country is shot .
 
Objective Voice said:
I get that neighter side were proposing such a thing for good reason - because they knew such a measure would never get passed!

I get that your side is now trying to move the goal post to curry favor.

I get that your's is a desparate attempt to come in and save the day!

I have a copy of both plans and you're right. Both are near identical. But that doesn't erase the fact that the Democrat's plan not only cuts more from the debt, it also has wide Democrate support and could very likely gain enough support in the House to pass. And your side can't stand that! They'll say and do anything at this point to win!
Click to expand...

-chuckles- I'm having a hard time keeping up here .... first you argue that we can't freeze spending at 2011 levels ... because we need room to spend in case of emergencys..... now you are arguing that we should have more spending "cuts" because it's a democratic plan ?? I would think you would be more in favor of the Republican plan that has less cuts ??

and you say our side can't stand that ?
 
Objective Voice said:
I know exactly what it means. It means restricting spending to only what the country takes in each year and the country would never go for it.

That would be balancing the budget.

What it means is that next years spending is the same as this years spending, frozen, not growing. It means that they cannot use baseline budgeting for next years spending, they have to use numbers that reflect the actual amount spent to create the new budget
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
So in you opinion the fact that we have increased spending just over the last three years by nearly 800 billion dollars .. . that you don't think we can live within that structure ??? If thats the case … then it's true .. this country is shot .
Click to expand...

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?
 
cholla said:
What it means is that next years spending is the same as this years spending, frozen. It means that they cannot use baseline budgeting for next years spending, they have to use numbers that reflect the actual amount spent to create the new budget
Click to expand...

Again, why didn't Boehner's plan call for doing that in the first place if it was such a novel concept? Like I said, once again your side's trying to move the goal post.
 
The Barbarian said:
-chuckles- I'm having a hard time keeping up here .... first you argue that we can't freeze spending at 2011 levels ... because we need room to spend in case of emergencys..... now you are arguing that we should have more spending "cuts" because it's a democratic plan ?? I would think you would be more in favor of the Republican plan that has less cuts ??

and you say our side can't stand that ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Again, why didn't Boehner's plan call for doing that in the first place if it was such a novel concept? Like I said, once again your side's trying to move the goal post.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom