Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote

[JBeukema]

We need to find a good man, like Paul, to serve a term as a tyrant. A classical tyrant, granted great authority to make sweeping changes in government (changes difficult to push through legislatively due to a variety of reasons) for a set period of time.

Such a man could use this authority to get rid of many redundant government agencies, end subsidies for big agra, which is near impossible through other means, and clean out the federal government. We could write the Emergency Powers Act in such as way as to ensure the term cannot be renewed and he can be recalled with an 85% majority.

Term of, say, 6-12 months.

 

[uscitizen]

Paul Newman?

 

[Samson]

Paul Newman?

Paul McCartney?

 

[Avorysuds]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

Did you vote for more debt?

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

So at what point does the Government stop barrowing? What business runs up debts for 20+ years and makes it? I guess I have to say, what business that does not get Government handouts can make it off never ending and always growing debt?

How did Harding manage it with doing the very opposite of deficit building while stepping in during a depression?

 

[Two Thumbs]

so the country should grow and the govt stay the same size?

Heaven Forbid!!!

No more roads, only one fire and police station per city becuase that is what they started out with. One school, etc.

I bolded everything that is or can be done by your state

 

[auditor0007]

You mean, the hole gets deeper?

The hole gets deeper because those on the left are not willing to make significant cuts, and those on the right are not willing to raise taxes, which also must be done. Revenues as a percentage of GDP are at the lowest levels in sixty years. The deficit is not strictly due to overspending. A great deal of it is due to tax cuts that have proven ineffective in growing the economy to the point of increasing revenues. Revenues are only up 5% since 2000, while GDP is up 50%. That is a major problem, and it has nothing to do with spending.

Serious spending cuts....then tax increases. It has to be in that order, or there will be higher tax increases and just more of the same spending without emphasis on the debt.

Our biggest spending issues are from Military spending and Medicare. SS is a problem to a much lesser degree. The money for SS would pretty much be there if our elected representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had not loaned it away over the past 30 years. Military spending could easily be cut by $300 billion per year if we get the hell out of the Middle East and quit trying to police the entire planet. Long term Medicare costs can be reduced dramatically by increasing the retirement age. Nobody seems to like this idea, but it is the one that makes the most sense considering people are living so much longer. Instead of making private insurance cover people in their last years, allow private insurance to cover most people while they work a few more years before retirement, then let Medicare do what it was meant to, but for fewer years.

Cuts in some discretionary spending can be made, but the fact is that discretionary spending is not the long term problem, yet this is what Republicans seem to concentrate on. The worst thing about all of this is that it doesn't even begin to address one of our biggest long term issues, and that is spending on infrastructure. At some point, we are going to have to find a way to pay for this on top of figuring out our current budget. The current need for infrastructure spending is estimated somewhere around $2.5 trillion. And we are going to have to address this if we plan to keep this country from physically falling apart.

 

[Avorysuds]

so the country should grow and the govt stay the same size?

Heaven Forbid!!!

No more roads, only one fire and police station per city becuase that is what they started out with. One school, etc.

I have a better Idea...

We can do it your way and watch as education, roads and Government jobs run up a deficit so high that it's no longer sustainable... Great idea!

Or wait, are you one of those people that believes we just raise taxes on the rich and all of a sudden we can magically pay for all that shit even thought it wouldn’t cover 1% of it?

 

[JBeukema]

Please explain in great detail why the government won't wast my money again.

Because you're going to vote for James Beukema and then pass the Emergency Powers act, granting me authority for 12 months to make any changes to the budget I wish and re-arrange the government as I see fit.

It's faster and easier than passing FeRRA

As long as we get to assassinate you as being an enemy of the state after the 12 months are up, I'd vote for that.

If I refuse to step down when the People ask me to, then I lose legitimacy and my assassination is just.

My first act will be to convene a council of financial advisors (I'd write the Mises institute and ask then to aid me with their best council) to go over every item in the federal budget. Those who wish to keep it must prove why it is necessary that it exist and be handled by the Fed.

Then I would summon our highest generals and foreign ambassadors to negotiate our withdraw from Cold War era bases- they will be handed over to the host nations so they may defend themselves.

Then I will declare that we will no longer honour NAFTA. I will ask ICE to establish a bureau to check the nations/companies/factories where any imported goods come from. If they do not meet environmental and labour standards comparable to our own, they will face steep tariffs. this will disincentive outsourcing.

We will assist the Mexican government in rebuilding their economy and use drone strikes to take out the cartels so a legitimate government can assume control and keep the peace. Such a government and a strong economy in Mexico are necessary to stem the violence and the waves of illegal entrants overwhelming our border patrol.

Subsidies to big Agra, big Ethanol, and big Oil will be ended and States will be encouraged to revamp their welfare programs, enforcing strict standards that require people to document their efforts to become gainfully employed.

The American Society of Civil engineers and the Army Corps of Engineers will be tasked with coming up a plan to get American's infrastructure up to par in five years.

The best economists will be brought forth to argue the merits of the flat, fair, and other tax plans. The goal will to be to come up with a simplified tax system free of the innumerable loop holes we have today. A simple three-tier progressive system (with the lowest tier being except) will be the first option to be debated.

Hollywood's top minds will be brought forth and asked to redirect the Hollywood propaganda machine to foster an environment in which the radioactive spider is replaced with the Ubermensch and self-improvement and the local churches and citizens councils that lead local efforts to aid the poor are cast as among our greatest civil heroes and role models.

Weekly reports on progress will be shared with the public and people will be encouraged to gather signatures and petition for any other actions they wish to see taken.

 

[auditor0007]

You mean, the hole gets deeper?

The hole gets deeper because those on the left are not willing to make significant cuts, and those on the right are not willing to raise taxes, which also must be done. Revenues as a percentage of GDP are at the lowest levels in sixty years. The deficit is not strictly due to overspending. A great deal of it is due to tax cuts that have proven ineffective in growing the economy to the point of increasing revenues. Revenues are only up 5% since 2000, while GDP is up 50%. That is a major problem, and it has nothing to do with spending.

Please explain in great detail why the government won't wast my money again.

since I have lived, government has grown and grown. do you truly think for a single moment that by keeping more of our money they will magically stop over spending?

Keep in mind, history is on my side, so you must prove to me that history will not repeat again.

Government spending has not grown and grown until recently. Over the last 60 years or so, it has fluctuated somewhere between 17 and 20 percent of GDP. It wasn't until the last few years that it exploded. The reasons for the explosive growth have been due to military spending, bank bailouts, the stimulus package, and most importantly, the ever increasing number of retirees, which everyone knew was coming.

Also remember this, we have been fooling ourselves for years that things were not as bad as they actually were because we have consistently borrowed excess SS revenues for use to pay for the general budget. Now that there SS is paying out as much as it collects, we are short that much more money.

Based on the fact that we do have an aging population and retirement benefits are going to cost us more, I could live with government spending moving up to around 22% of GDP. Based on this years projected GDP, that would allow for approximately $3.3 trillion in spending. This still leaves us with a very large deficit that must be addressed.

 

[JBeukema]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

Sometimes you have to spend in debt in order to get out of debt.

Ask anyone whose started a business; debt is fine if it's for sound investments that'll leave you better off in the long run.

Stop clinging to empty rhetoric and think

So at what point does the Government stop barrowing? What business runs up debts for 20+ years and makes it?

We've been spending, not investing. The problem boils down to that.

 

[JBeukema]

Private charities should be encouraged to make available to those Americans least productive and least likely to ever become productive substantial monetary compensation for undergoing such operations as will render them sterile and ensure they do not find themselves in the situation of bearing a child for which they cannot provide.

 

[auditor0007]

so the country should grow and the govt stay the same size?

Of course not, although that does seem to be the thought from the right. Those who want to see spending cuts are not wrong. They are just wrong in thinking that spending is the only problem. Over the last 60 years, federal outlays have run between 17 and 20 percent GDP. There have been a few years where they exceeded 20 percent, but those were exceptions, not the norm. We are currently have federal outlays that are running around 25 percent of GDP, and based on projections, they will pass 30 percent of GDP in about ten years unless something is done to reduce spending. So the Republicans are correct that we must reduce spending.

Now here is the other part of the problem. While current federal outlays are accounting for 25 percent of GDP, revenue is only sitting at around 14.5 percent of GDP, much lower than we have seen in a very long time. The bottom line is that we cannot fix our problems by just cutting spending, unless we plan to entirely gut our federal government. I really don't think we want to go there, although it seems that some hard core Righties are all for this. What we need is to cut spending in ways that make sense in the long term while increasing revenues. And increasing revenues means raising taxes. We are not going to get increased growth in revenues by lowering taxes. This is the calling card of the right, but there is a major problem with it. We have already cut taxes to a point where there is no longer a return benefit. Cutting taxes any further will only lead to even lower revenues.

There was a time when cutting taxes made sense, because tax rates were so high that it was a burden to economic growth. That is not the case today. In fact, the biggest threat to economic growth is the instability of our federal government and the fact that it may no longer be able to pay its bills. Get that fixed, and investors will begin investing again, in things that will actually create real growth in the US, and not just overseas.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This little farce is going to be repeated every time we have a new debt limit rise or continuing resolution.

Last time round, Bohner was able to hold up the Obama people and get more than he originally asked for. He now knows the Achilles heel of the Democrats negotiation strategy. And he will keep holding them up every time they need a new vote. Both sides will do comic opera, but Bohner will get what he wants out of Obama because Obama has essentially tossed Brother Rabbit into the Briar Patch. If the Democrats had been responsible back in October, none of this would be necessary. Now we have repeated farces as they have to scramble back from their own stupid. Each time Boehner can attack a trivial amount of budget and trade it for real money.

The scary part is an administration that puts itself into this kind of box over and over again, and has to trade something for nothing over and over again is also negotiating on our behalf with the Norks, the Iranians, the Russians and the Chinese. This is very much not reassuring.

 

[Political Junky]

The hole gets deeper because those on the left are not willing to make significant cuts, and those on the right are not willing to raise taxes, which also must be done. Revenues as a percentage of GDP are at the lowest levels in sixty years. The deficit is not strictly due to overspending. A great deal of it is due to tax cuts that have proven ineffective in growing the economy to the point of increasing revenues. Revenues are only up 5% since 2000, while GDP is up 50%. That is a major problem, and it has nothing to do with spending.

Serious spending cuts....then tax increases. It has to be in that order, or there will be higher tax increases and just more of the same spending without emphasis on the debt.

Our biggest spending issues are from Military spending and Medicare. SS is a problem to a much lesser degree. The money for SS would pretty much be there if our elected representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had not loaned it away over the past 30 years. Military spending could easily be cut by $300 billion per year if we get the hell out of the Middle East and quit trying to police the entire planet. Long term Medicare costs can be reduced dramatically by increasing the retirement age. Nobody seems to like this idea, but it is the one that makes the most sense considering people are living so much longer. Instead of making private insurance cover people in their last years, allow private insurance to cover most people while they work a few more years before retirement, then let Medicare do what it was meant to, but for fewer years.

Cuts in some discretionary spending can be made, but the fact is that discretionary spending is not the long term problem, yet this is what Republicans seem to concentrate on. The worst thing about all of this is that it doesn't even begin to address one of our biggest long term issues, and that is spending on infrastructure. At some point, we are going to have to find a way to pay for this on top of figuring out our current budget. The current need for infrastructure spending is estimated somewhere around $2.5 trillion. And we are going to have to address this if we plan to keep this country from physically falling apart.

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

 

[auditor0007]

Serious spending cuts....then tax increases. It has to be in that order, or there will be higher tax increases and just more of the same spending without emphasis on the debt.

Our biggest spending issues are from Military spending and Medicare. SS is a problem to a much lesser degree. The money for SS would pretty much be there if our elected representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had not loaned it away over the past 30 years. Military spending could easily be cut by $300 billion per year if we get the hell out of the Middle East and quit trying to police the entire planet. Long term Medicare costs can be reduced dramatically by increasing the retirement age. Nobody seems to like this idea, but it is the one that makes the most sense considering people are living so much longer. Instead of making private insurance cover people in their last years, allow private insurance to cover most people while they work a few more years before retirement, then let Medicare do what it was meant to, but for fewer years.

Cuts in some discretionary spending can be made, but the fact is that discretionary spending is not the long term problem, yet this is what Republicans seem to concentrate on. The worst thing about all of this is that it doesn't even begin to address one of our biggest long term issues, and that is spending on infrastructure. At some point, we are going to have to find a way to pay for this on top of figuring out our current budget. The current need for infrastructure spending is estimated somewhere around $2.5 trillion. And we are going to have to address this if we plan to keep this country from physically falling apart.

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

Sorry, but this is where the Republicans, at least those crying now, have a legitimate beef. We can't cut military spending by 2% of GDP just to transfer those payments to other programs. Military spending is currently at 6% of GDP. Since the end of WWII, it has run around 4% of GDP. We need to get it back to 4% of GDP just to help get the deficit under control. We can't be using that money elsewhere.

 

[auditor0007]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age. I realize that doing so would not work for everyone and we would have to grant early retirement to certain disabled individuals, but overall, the new retirement age needs to move to at least 70.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with Medicare and ss is simple: when we put them in place, we expected granny to be dead by now. We didn't plan for this.

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age.

Not on those who've been paying in all this time and were told they'd get their benefits at a given age. You forced them into an arrangement- now honour it.

Or should we simply let it be known that America believes is a nation of liars founded on lies? Perhaps our new nat5ional motto would be 'Our Word Means Nothing'; hell, the Hmong would probably agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Serious spending cuts....then tax increases. It has to be in that order, or there will be higher tax increases and just more of the same spending without emphasis on the debt.

Our biggest spending issues are from Military spending and Medicare. SS is a problem to a much lesser degree. The money for SS would pretty much be there if our elected representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, had not loaned it away over the past 30 years. Military spending could easily be cut by $300 billion per year if we get the hell out of the Middle East and quit trying to police the entire planet. Long term Medicare costs can be reduced dramatically by increasing the retirement age. Nobody seems to like this idea, but it is the one that makes the most sense considering people are living so much longer. Instead of making private insurance cover people in their last years, allow private insurance to cover most people while they work a few more years before retirement, then let Medicare do what it was meant to, but for fewer years.

Cuts in some discretionary spending can be made, but the fact is that discretionary spending is not the long term problem, yet this is what Republicans seem to concentrate on. The worst thing about all of this is that it doesn't even begin to address one of our biggest long term issues, and that is spending on infrastructure. At some point, we are going to have to find a way to pay for this on top of figuring out our current budget. The current need for infrastructure spending is estimated somewhere around $2.5 trillion. And we are going to have to address this if we plan to keep this country from physically falling apart.

A reduction in Military and we could have awesome schools, roads, trains, bridges, and be out of debt.

Bullshit.
I suppose we could dismantle the military entirely. Then we wouldn't have to worry about debt because Muslims don't believe in interest payments. We could be a province of the new Caliphate.

As for Boehner, good for him. Politics is a rough game. Every opportunity to cut entitlement programs, roll back Obamacare, and reduce taxes and spending should be taken. If that means Obama has to do it in exchange for anything, so be it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Their effort to do away with Medicare, as we know it, failed .... now this.

Debt ceiling: John Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for vote - latimes.com

By Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau
May 9, 2011, 6:57 p.m.
Reporting from Washington— House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street.

Boehner told the Economic Club of New York that his party wanted specific spending cuts — not future targets that would trigger spending reductions or revenue increases, as President Obama has proposed.

Let me guess, I am supposed to be upset.