• 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

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?

okay so you are in favor of no lid on government spending at all .. just keep borrowing whatever we need ... and keep right on spending as we have been ?
 
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.

Yes, but that just brings us back to my original point, doesn't it? That Sen. Reid's plan cuts more over the same period and targets pretty much the same areas. I'm sure if Reid went back and tweaked his bill somewhat, he could ensure some upfront-cuts, too, and perhaps get more spending cuts without the so-called "gimmicks" your side have proclaimed them to be.

As I said, the CBO threw Boehner a bone and now he's got something to champion his people to his cause. HURRAY!! :roll:
 
okay so you are in favor of no lid on government spending at all .. just keep borrowing whatever we need ... and keep right on spending as we have been ?

Borrow when we need, yes.

Keep right on spending as we have been, no. Honest, responsible government dictates.

Put people of integrity in office who aren't affraid to stand on priciple and follow the laws of the land - the very laws they write under rules they set to government by while in chambers - and I don't doubt our government can live within its means. Utopian...?...maybe, but you have to admit it's so much better than what we have in Congress right now.
 
[QUOTE As I said, the CBO threw Boehner a bone and now he's got something to champion his people to his cause. HURRAY!! :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are upset about, Boehner has a plan that can pass both the house and the senate, Rieds plan will probably not pass the house as the freshman are not carrying water for Obama, so won't buy into the faux cuts in his plan, and there are not enough democrats to pass it with out them. I thought you wanted the debt limit raised, this is the plan with the best chance of getting to Obamas desk. Then we can see what he does with his one vote.
 
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.

okay now we are getting somewhere .. . and yes .. some in the tea party are acting radical, just as some of the left is actiing radical .. . thankfully ... or hopefully .. those few acting as such .. do not represnt what either side is really about.

We agree on this... we have to get everyone out of government except the people, the only way to do that ... is to take 5 or 10 dollars from everyones tax returns .. put that in an election fund .. and each party recieves half in any election year, and thats it .. you make do with that. That takes corporations, unions, and business out of the mix. If they can't give to your campaign you owe them no faovrs.

In my view we must see real ... provable ... cuts, after 20 or 30 years of reckless spending I'm not going to buy into cuts that will be made down the road, we've been fed that story far to often ... prove that spending can be reined in... programs that are broke work to make them more efficient. programs like SS and Medicare need to be revised to give them some stability for future generations ... once you show me you can do those things ... then come to me in the form of more taxes to help us out of this mess.

I'm sorry, I can't blame republicans in this matter, they were elected (many of them) in 2010 to do something to stop this spending train, thats what they were elected to do, and thats what they are trying to do. I realize that lately it's a novel concept to do what you were elected to do, but in all appearances they do seem to be doing that. Quite frankly I find that rather refreshing, even if they do things I don't agree with.
 
Put people of integrity in office who aren't affraid to stand on priciple and follow the laws of the land - the very laws they write under rules they set to government by while in chambers .

Sounds just like what the tea party people are doing. Of course you realize that the only reason we are talking about cutting anything and not just raising the limit with a "clean" vote is because of the tea party.
 
Boehner has a plan that can pass both the house and the senate...

Boehner's plan will probably pass in the House, now that the Speaker is putting the squeeze on potentially intransigent elements. There remains some risk of failure, as perhaps only a tiny handful of Democrats may vote for the plan. In the Senate, its prospects are likely doomed. Politico revealed, "Fifty-three senators, 51 Democrats and two independents, signed a letter to Boehner on Wednesday vowing to oppose the House bill."

Senator Reid's plan will probably pass in the Senate, but fail in the House. However, it is not implausible that once the Boehner plan fails in the Senate, that Reid's plan won't be put to a vote. Instead, intensive negotiations that would aim to build on the overlap between the two bills and reconcile them into a single piece of legislation could commence. My guess remains that a $1 trillion -$2 trillion savings package (largely backloaded, mainly discretionary spending reductions from the baseline and no tax hikes) will be tied to the debt ceiling increase. So long as CBO indicates that the projected savings match the hike in the debt ceiling, the bill will come to a vote. If it emerges from the Congress, the President will sign it. It will be perhaps the only chance to avert a possible crisis and if it commands bipartisan support, the President will not isolate himself by vetoing it.
 
Sounds just like what the tea party people are doing. Of course you realize that the only reason we are talking about cutting anything and not just raising the limit with a "clean" vote is because of the tea party.

The Tea Party is in fact why we're risking the first downgrade of our credit rating in 100 years as they've forced a nonsensical showdown over the debt limit and boxed in republicans with silly pledges. Spending cuts were inevitable with or without the tea party.
 
Sounds just like what the tea party people are doing. Of course you realize that the only reason we are talking about cutting anything and not just raising the limit with a "clean" vote is because of the tea party.

The teabaggers dont know what they're talking about. They want the govt to keeps its' hands off their Medicare :lol:
 
Sen. Reid's plan cuts more over the same period and targets pretty much the same areas.

reid extends twice as much credit as boehner

reid gets the president thru november, 2012, allowing leadership to dodge this fundamental question for 2 additional years

no, if something isn't done NOW to fundamentally restructure our entitlement budgets, then our big 3 federal programs (as well as state pensions) will very soon vanish

no long term extensions of credit without ANSWERS first

leadership, anyone?
 
Boehner's plan will probably pass in the House, now that the Speaker is putting the squeeze on potentially intransigent elements. There remains some risk of failure, as perhaps only a tiny handful of Democrats may vote for the plan. In the Senate, its prospects are likely doomed. Politico revealed, "Fifty-three senators, 51 Democrats and two independents, signed a letter to Boehner on Wednesday vowing to oppose the House bill."

Senator Reid's plan will probably pass in the Senate, but fail in the House. However, it is not implausible that once the Boehner plan fails in the Senate, that Reid's plan won't be put to a vote. Instead, intensive negotiations that would aim to build on the overlap between the two bills and reconcile them into a single piece of legislation could commence. My guess remains that a $1 trillion -$2 trillion savings package (largely backloaded, mainly discretionary spending reductions from the baseline and no tax hikes) will be tied to the debt ceiling increase. So long as CBO indicates that the projected savings match the hike in the debt ceiling, the bill will come to a vote. If it emerges from the Congress, the President will sign it. It will be perhaps the only chance to avert a possible crisis and if it commands bipartisan support, the President will not isolate himself by vetoing it.

Agreed. Fact is, it's the only chance at a compromise both sides are going to get.
 
The teabaggers dont know what they're talking about. They want the govt to keeps its' hands off their Medicare :lol:

Yeah yeah yeah … we get it .. less government .. less spending = tea party = bad

more government.. more spending =liberals = good
 
Two quick additional notes:

If by some chance Boehner's legislation fails in the House (probably unlikely), that could truly spook the financial markets. It would indicate that the Speaker's leverage is badly impaired and would raise serious doubts about the prospects for adopting meaningful deficit reduction legislation. In turn, that outcome would increase risk of a U.S. credit downgrade.

Politically, Speaker Boehner would have been marginalized and Republican electoral prospects damaged. In the wake of such a debacle, even as the Democrats hold a minority in the House, their leverage would increase markedly. No responsible political leader will allow a possible default, so one could reasonably expect a flight of pragmatic Republicans to any legislation that would raise the debt ceiling, even if far fewer savings than are possible now would be tied to that increase. The Republican caucus would be fractured and those differences could seriously undermine Republicans' 2012 electoral prospects. In short, the price for an overreach that doomed Speaker Boehner's legislation in a House vote would be potentially very steep for Republicans.
 
Boehner won't put his bill to a vote if he doesn't have the votes. I think the markets have already priced in the fact that Boehner can't control his own caucus.
 
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?"
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
The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which would raise the debt cap by $2.7 trillion, would reduce deficits by $2.2 trillion.

In terms of spending, the CBO estimates that the Reid plan it was given would cut $1.8 trillion.

But that's because the Reid plan takes credit for cutting $1 trillion in war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those savings can only be claimed if one assumes the U.S. engagement there will continue at full throttle for the next decade.
 
And Obama was proposing debt reduction of over $4 trillion. But if Obama layed a golden egg on the White House lawn republicans would accuse him of trying to undercut gold miners....
 
The Tea Party is in fact why we're risking the first downgrade of our credit rating in 100 years as they've forced a nonsensical showdown over the debt limit and boxed in republicans with silly pledges. Spending cuts were inevitable with or without the tea party.
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.
 
And Obama was proposing debt reduction of over $4 trillion. But if Obama layed a golden egg on the White House lawn republicans would accuse him of trying to undercut gold miners....
Can you link the proposal? Better yet, the CBO analysis.

If not, he may as well be promising to lay golden eggs.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Can you link the proposal? Better yet, the CBO analysis.

If not, he may as well be promising to lay golden eggs.

No, the deal was never finalized. There wasn't much point in doing that when Boehner told him point blank that he wouldn't support it and it couldn't pass the House.
 
No, the deal was never finalized. There wasn't much point in doing that when Boehner told him point blank that he wouldn't support it and it couldn't pass the House.
Wouldn't support what? Again, do you have some kind of link to this proposal?
 
Wouldn't support what? Again, do you have some kind of link to this proposal?

We would have found out what was in it only after it was passed.
 
The Tea Party is in fact why we're risking the first downgrade of our credit rating in 100 years as they've forced a nonsensical showdown over the debt limit and boxed in republicans with silly pledges. Spending cuts were inevitable with or without the tea party.

In another way to look at it, one could say that that the silly showdown would never have occurred under pelosi and reid, because they would have just raised the limit with no cuts. Spending cuts were in no way going to happen with them in charge. Last November, the american people changed the game. This is a good thing.
 
The teabaggers dont know what they're talking about. They want the govt to keeps its' hands off their Medicare :lol:

Always with the veiled insults, eh? Could you post a link to your statement, I'm not familiar with that quote.
 
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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom