immto
Return to Freedom
Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".
Vote in the poll.
Vote in the poll.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With less than a month to go before debt ceiling D-Day, President Obama says he's gunning for the big deal -- the comprehensive, balanced plan that would take a big knife to the country's debt. That so-called "grand bargain" would be worth up to $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade. But getting that grand bargain will be very hard and not just because time is short. "This is a really heavy lift," said longtime political observer Norm Ornstein, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
So heavy, in fact, that Ornstein is not convinced lawmakers will get past their partisan furies before markets go nuts and jolt them into action if only to raise the debt ceiling. That's because the key issues under discussion are political rats' nests.
Tax increases: Republicans have said repeatedly that they're happy to put everything on the table except tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, have said they can't agree to a spending-cuts only deal. But Republicans are not budging publicly, and especially not after Friday's disappointing jobs report. "It just does not make sense for Americans to suffer under higher taxes in an economy like this. And, as the Speaker [of the House John Boehner] said, there is no way that the House of Representatives will support a tax increase," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.
Earlier this week, Cantor said if President Obama wants to talk about closing tax loopholes, he'd be happy to if the revenue produced from doing so is offset by tax cuts elsewhere. In other words, no new revenue could be used for debt reduction. So that doesn't move the two sides much closer. Other Republicans, like Sen. Orrin Hatch, only want to discuss closing loopholes in the context of fundamental tax reform. And tax reform, they believe, should not be part of any debt-reduction discussion.
Fiscal experts from the left and right have said repeatedly that any credible plan to reduce the country's debt load -- which is to say a plan the country can stick to -- will have to involve changes to spending and taxes. Their reason: Curing budget shortfalls with spending cuts alone would require draconian cutbacks in government programs. Many Republican lawmakers, however, have frequently and loudly demonized tax increases of any kind at any time. So it will be hard for them to vote for a grand bargain that includes increases in revenue.
Social Security:
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama says that once Congress reaches an agreement on the debt ceiling, businesses will have the confidence they need to add workers to their payrolls.
The report out Friday morning showed employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent. Congressional Republicans and GOP presidential hopefuls used the dismal report to slam Obama's economic agenda.
The reports come as Democrats and Republicans near an urgent deadline to increase the nation's borrowing power and prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its obligations.
Source
The crash of our economy doesnt bother you?
When interest rates rise the shit hits the fan...
Balance the budget now
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
its not that tough. Toss in the Bush tax cuts, end two wars, cut defense, extend SS & put "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" on Medicare (like for private insurance) problem solved.
Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".
Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".
Vote in the poll.
The US fiscal crisis risks ensnaring the military with drastic cuts and strategic changes that the US Army fears will leave it the main victim of the countrys debt crunch, analysts said. Having almost doubled since 2001, the Pentagon budget request to the US Congress will amount to US$553 billion next year, on top of US$118 billion allocated by the White House for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan eight months ago. However, a deficit reduction plan passed since those monies were allocated will strip about US$450 billion from military coffers during the next decade.
General Ray Odierno, the armys chief of staff, said in Washington on Monday that the savings can be achieved, but not without serious implications. Those are difficult, difficult cuts that have an impact on all the services, but particularly, in my mind, on the army, he said. The sticking point is that budget planners and strategists at the Pentagon cannot yet determine what programs or weapons will be cut or how many personnel will be declared redundant. Further cost savings of up to US$600 billion could come as a result of a bipartisan commission in Congress tasked with finding additional ways to reduce federal spending by the end of next month.
William Lynn, who was deputy defense secretary, said when he left office last week that such large cuts would require difficult choices and a combination of drastic measures. We can do this by bringing overall force levels down as we draw down in Afghanistan. We can reduce our presence in some parts of the world, while maintaining or expanding it in others, he said. And we can leverage technology to make a smaller force more effective and agile than the force we have today, but we will have to modify our strategy and prioritize our key missions.
Having risen from 480,000 active soldiers in 2001 to 570,000 currently, US Army numbers will probably fall below 520,000 after withdrawals from Iraq at the end of this year and from Afghanistan in 2014, Odierno has said. Retired Lieutenant-General David Barno, now an analyst at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, said the army could be the big loser, as it is easier to cut soldiers than end naval or air programs. Cutting the number of ground forces may incur less risk than canceling naval and air modernization programs because the US military can build up additional ground forces more quickly than it can acquire additional naval and air forces once production lines have closed, he said.
MORE
Fifteen years ago, the budget deficit stood at $107 billion, government debt totaled about $5 trillion and a balanced-budget constitutional amendment came within one senators vote of passing Congress, buoyed by the likes of then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden, who made an impassioned plea on the floor for its adoption. Fast-forward to 2011, when the deficit has topped $1 trillion for a third year in a row, the debt has tripled to hit $15 trillion, and Congress once again will vote on a balanced-budget amendment. But Mr. Biden, now the vice president, has gone silent and others who supported the amendment in the 1990s say they have soured on it.
What I said in 1995, I absolutely agree with today. Unfortunately, I did not contemplate the irresponsibility that I have seen fiscally over the last eight years of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate, and this last few months, where Republicans took America to the brink of default and placed the confidence of the world in Americas fiscal judgment at question, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking House Democrat, told reporters this week, explaining his high-profile shift from supporter to opponent.
That has left what was once a largely bipartisan effort now in tatters. Liberal Democrats say the amendment goes too far, conservative Republicans say it doesnt go far enough, and a tenuous political center still defends the middle ground. Im for it. I was for it before it was cool, said one of those centrists, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat. He said Congress has shown it cannot help itself when it comes to controlling spending. Obviously, we do not have the discipline to do this, no matter who the hells in charge. Weve got to get the balanced-budget amendment.
On Wednesday, the Blue Dogs, the more conservative members of the House Democratic Caucus, endorsed the amendment, going against Mr. Hoyer and the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership ahead of the debate, scheduled to begin Thursday. A House vote is slated for Friday, and the Senate will vote later this year. The last time the balanced-budget amendment was seriously considered was in 1995 and 1996, just after Republicans won control of both chambers in the 1994 elections. The amendment garnered 300 votes in the House in 1995, which was well more than the two-thirds needed, but fell one vote shy in the Senate a year later.
MORE
Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".
Vote in the poll.
Let Obama cut his 4 trillion and raise taxes on the bloated millionnaires ferchrissake 4%!!!...gd pubs...
Only if you believe in Keynesian economics,
which has been proven to fail time and time again.
I suppose you also believe that more spending and debt is good....