• 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!

Reid rejects Boehner proposal for $2 trillion in spending cuts

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So the obstruction party we saw under Bush is back. Big surprise. They don't want to cut spending. I am shocked
JC-hysterical.gif


Budget talks: Reid rejects Boehner proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts - latimes.com

Battle lines in federal debt talks sharpened markedly Thursday when the Senate's top Democrat rejected a proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts as demanded by House Speaker John A. Boehner, saying any cuts must be accompanied by action on closing tax loopholes.

"You can't do $2 trillion just in cuts," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. "There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country."

Republicans have resisted using tax reform to rein in deficits as Congress and the White House try to break a stalemate over raising the nation's debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid a first-ever federal default. Boehner's office reiterated Thursday that tax hikes would not be "on the table" in talks.
 
A majority of Americans favor tax increases as part of the formula to fix the deficit.
Americans back tax increases in debt fix: Reuters poll | Reuters

Reagan's Budget Director also says increased taxes MUST be part of the solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24stockman.html

So why does Boehner get to hold all the cards? Because he runs 1 of 2 houses that represent the people?

It's called negotiation. The moment he said, "Tax increases are not on the table", Boehner killed everything.

The only way to do this is to go in with everything on the table.
 
Instead of keeping a convuluted, flawed tax system and simply raising the withholding requirements why don't we restruct the entire process, simplify it, and eliminate the need for 80% of the IRS?
 
Instead of keeping a convuluted, flawed tax system and simply raising the withholding requirements why don't we restruct the entire process, simplify it, and eliminate the need for 80% of the IRS?

You are more likely to see Joseph Stalin as president than ever see the tax code completely scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Forgetaboutit.
 
there's a reason the party in power has failed to produce a budget in the united states senate in TWO YEARS

and, according to finance and budget chairs baucus and conrad, upper parliament is NOT likely to come up with one this year either

which is the exact same reason the debt ceiling will be lifted along almost purely REPUBLICAN lines

huge cuts, short and medium term, as well as STRUCTURAL reform---or no new roof

why hasn't, why can't and why won't kent conrad WRITE UP a blueprint?

stay tuned
 
So the obstruction party we saw under Bush is back. Big surprise. They don't want to cut spending. I am shocked
JC-hysterical.gif


Budget talks: Reid rejects Boehner proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts - latimes.com

Battle lines in federal debt talks sharpened markedly Thursday when the Senate's top Democrat rejected a proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts as demanded by House Speaker John A. Boehner, saying any cuts must be accompanied by action on closing tax loopholes.

"You can't do $2 trillion just in cuts," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. "There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country."

Republicans have resisted using tax reform to rein in deficits as Congress and the White House try to break a stalemate over raising the nation's debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid a first-ever federal default. Boehner's office reiterated Thursday that tax hikes would not be "on the table" in talks.

Im more shocked that the republican senate voted down ending subsidies for big oil amidst this crisis they tell us were in where govt gives away to much money...I guess the republicans mean give to much money to the working class...you can never give enough to the ones that dont need it for them.

I cant stomach reid...but im fast finding this new republican party just as repulsive
 
Instead of keeping a convuluted, flawed tax system and simply raising the withholding requirements why don't we restruct the entire process, simplify it, and eliminate the need for 80% of the IRS?

I would actually support this. Set rates and cut all loopholes.
 
A majority of Americans favor tax increases as part of the formula to fix the deficit.
Americans back tax increases in debt fix: Reuters poll | Reuters

Reagan's Budget Director also says increased taxes MUST be part of the solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24stockman.html

So why does Boehner get to hold all the cards? Because he runs 1 of 2 houses that represent the people?

It's called negotiation. The moment he said, "Tax increases are not on the table", Boehner killed everything.

The only way to do this is to go in with everything on the table.

Because he is the majority leader and the House controls finance. Reid once again shows he is back to the obstruction party mode as he did under bush
 
Im more shocked that the republican senate voted down ending subsidies for big oil amidst this crisis they tell us were in where govt gives away to much money...I guess the republicans mean give to much money to the working class...you can never give enough to the ones that dont need it for them.

I cant stomach reid...but im fast finding this new republican party just as repulsive

They did it with the help of a couple of democrats
 
I'd want to see calculations on a flat percentage tax. Like, 5%, 10%, 15% across the board. Show me what that does with revenues. Get rid of income levels that remove your tax obligation.
 
So the obstruction party we saw under Bush is back. Big surprise. They don't want to cut spending. I am shocked
JC-hysterical.gif

Did I miss something? They want to cut defense spending. Does that news shock you as well? It's right there in your quote dude.
 
what's truly shocking is the product of the democrat lame duck:

Obama signs tax deal into law - CNN

why did the party with fifty nine senators and a plurality of 76 in lower house do that?

same reason kent conrad is paralyzed, perhaps?

it's been two years since the us senate fulfilled its fundamental responsibility to produce a budget---in times like these

if something isn't done imminently to restructure our budget, our big 3 federal programs will not be there for our next generation, not the way they should be, leastaways

leadership, anyone?

it's YOUR move, mr reid

it has been since boehner sent you HR ONE in JANUARY

hurry up, harry!
 
The government has never shown us it has an inability to take more and more of our money.

It has however shown a SEVERE lack in ability to actually control THEMSELVES, cut their spending, and act responsably in regards to their gullotonous use of our Tax Dollars.

Good on Boehner on this one. How about you actually cut the budget significantly and prove you will follow through with it, then we can talk about giving the government more of our money.
 
NO, taking more of my money to pay for the government being irresponsible has come to an end.
that party is over..

you cut spending, 2 trillion sounds like a good start
 
www.fairtax.org is an even better idea. The "Rich and Wealthy" would pay MORE then they do under any income tax scheme you can devise.

I wish there was a way to get Herman Cain into the race on a serious level.
I like him, Not only is he conservative minded, he's a real American sucess story, unlike "clown boy i did it on the basis of being black" that we have in white house now.

And he truly could pull some, if not most of the African American vote that has no intention of paying attention to anything except wheres the "vote for the black guy" box I need to check.

Maybe the better idea is for someone to put him on the ticket as VP
 
Senator Reid's rejection of Congressman Boehner's opening proposal is not surprising. There are vast differences in terms of the composition of a fiscal consolidation package (tax vs. spending contribution) and the underlying details related to that composition. Given earlier Republican positions on the extent of spending reductions that would be sought, it appears that the opening idea is for a $2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. From Senator Reid's remarks concerning the need to include defense cuts, it is plausible that the opening Republican proposal exempted the Pentagon. IMO, if one is seeking a broad reduction in expenditures, including those associated with the mandatory spending programs, one should not exempt Defense spending. Given the magnitude of the nation's long-term imbalances and politically difficult but necessary choices that lie ahead, a policy that creates "sacred cows" so to speak is a policy that can only undermine fiscal consolidation.

My guess remains that an agreement will be reached, and it will probably come with immediate fiscal consolidation being fairly small relative to promised future fiscal consolidation. I suspect that the debt ceiling will probably be increased by $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion (there is a growing probability of something less than $2 trillion, especially if taxes won't be included this time around; the Democrats almost certainly won't accept an all expenditures approach for $2 trillion in promised fiscal consolidation). Modest spending cuts, largely, if not wholly, in discretionary spending would be agreed and implemented for FY 2012. In terms of the larger structural issues, some kind of finessing will occur. Goals or targets would probably be adopted, but the policy specifics would be left to be defined later. There might even be agreement to "examine" tax code reform, without specificity as to whether or not revenue increases would be part of that reform (leaving the issue until after the 2012 election).

Such an arrangement would allow the Republicans to assert that spending reductions were made and commitments for more aggressive spending reductions/mandatory spending reforms are in place, and that the combination of spending reductions matches or exceeds the amount by which the debt ceiling was increased. It will also allow them to assert that no tax hikes were agreed. At the same time, the Democrats will be able to assert that tax hikes have not been removed from the table and that a broader examination of mandatory spending reforms could occur before final decisions are made.

Less likely, but not completely out-of-the-question, would be a deal that raises the debt ceiling by a modest amount (perhaps sufficient to buy 6-12 months of time) in exchange for modest FY 2012 spending reductions and a second increase for the remainder of the request contingent on working out the details of larger fiscal consolidation. That move would alleviate any immediate risk of default or draconian spending rationing, while buying time for the Congress to carefully work out a deal on the larger issues. With the 2012 election approaching, such a move would probably not be optimal from a political calendar standpoint. Hence, it might be a last resort.

In sum, adjustments to the mandatory spending programs will likely be postponed yet again. Against those perpetual time horizon present value imbalances, the reductions in discretionary spending would be little more than cosmetic. Even macroeconomically painless measures such as gradually increasing the Medicare/Social Security eligibility age and pegging it to changes in life expectancy likely won't be pursued. Therefore, even as an immediate debt crisis would be averted, there is a genuine risk that the overall agreement will lack credibility.
 
Especially the half of the country who doesn't pay taxes, and they only want tax increases on the rich.

Not paying income taxes is not the same thing as not paying taxes.

Of course, doesn't stop you guys from repeating the line over the last year or so.

Also, it's easy to just point at this rejection and say "Hah! Democrats don't want to cut spending, see!?"

But imagine the scenario where the Democrats propose $2 trillion in spending cuts. Every single penny of those cuts comes from grants to Christian organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the military. Republicans shoot it down.

Who are you going to blame? The Republicans for shooting it down or the Democrats for proposing such an asinine budget?
 
Last edited:
Every single penny of those cuts comes from grants to Christian organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the military. Republicans shoot it down.

reid and conrad, et al, are entirely free to do so, they have been for two years

there's a reason...

hint: ask cuomo, ask the ram, ask moonbeam

ask the massachusetts house, the legislature in springfield, bing and bobb in detroit

it's like physics, there's no stopping it

the white house is the last holdout

it's just a matter of time
 
I'd want to see calculations on a flat percentage tax. Like, 5%, 10%, 15% across the board. Show me what that does with revenues. Get rid of income levels that remove your tax obligation.

funny you should mention - the Ryan plan does pretty much just that, and keeps revenues neutral (though to be fair the increased growth every year after that will bring in more money)
 
So the obstruction party we saw under Bush is back. Big surprise. They don't want to cut spending. I am shocked
JC-hysterical.gif


Budget talks: Reid rejects Boehner proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts - latimes.com

Battle lines in federal debt talks sharpened markedly Thursday when the Senate's top Democrat rejected a proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts as demanded by House Speaker John A. Boehner, saying any cuts must be accompanied by action on closing tax loopholes.

"You can't do $2 trillion just in cuts," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. "There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country."

Republicans have resisted using tax reform to rein in deficits as Congress and the White House try to break a stalemate over raising the nation's debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid a first-ever federal default. Boehner's office reiterated Thursday that tax hikes would not be "on the table" in talks.

Reid has a point. A more fair apportionment of taxes should be done. There's far too many people who don't pay taxes, and the tax code should be written to make the lower classes pay more of their fair share.

As for the rest, Reid is, of course, wrong. Because the budget deficit is a spending defect, it won't be fixed unless spending is reined in.
 
Reid has a point. A more fair apportionment of taxes should be done. There's far too many people who don't pay taxes, and the tax code should be written to make the lower classes pay more of their fair share.

As for the rest, Reid is, of course, wrong. Because the budget deficit is a spending defect, it won't be fixed unless spending is reined in.

He's saying we should both cut spending and raise taxes. A combination of both so that neither has to be drastic. You don't seem to have grasped this.

So what you're saying is that you support raising taxes for the poor and lowering taxes for the rich? I just want to be clear on that. In this terrible economy when a lot of people are in desperate times, you want to raise taxes on the people who are the most desperate. Just making sure I understand your opinion properly.

Edit: Incidentally, this situation where half the population "pays no taxes" (actually pays no federal income taxes, which is not the same thing at all) was created by the Bush administration's tax cuts. I thought those were a good thing and we had to make sure every bit of those tax cuts remained? I guess expecting consistency from guys like you is a bit much...
 
Last edited:
So the obstruction party we saw under Bush is back. Big surprise. They don't want to cut spending. I am shocked
JC-hysterical.gif


Budget talks: Reid rejects Boehner proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts - latimes.com

Battle lines in federal debt talks sharpened markedly Thursday when the Senate's top Democrat rejected a proposal for $2 trillion in budget cuts as demanded by House Speaker John A. Boehner, saying any cuts must be accompanied by action on closing tax loopholes.

"You can't do $2 trillion just in cuts," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. "There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country."

Republicans have resisted using tax reform to rein in deficits as Congress and the White House try to break a stalemate over raising the nation's debt limit by Aug. 2 to avoid a first-ever federal default. Boehner's office reiterated Thursday that tax hikes would not be "on the table" in talks.
Reid was absolutely correct in rejecting Boehner's demands...Boehner wants to dictate how this will play out, instead of negotiating...isnt going to happen. where was all this interest to balance the budget in the Bush years?
 
Back
Top Bottom