• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

House passes GOP debt measure; Obama praises compromise plan

Curt James

Elite Member
Elite Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
14,747
Reaction score
4,238
Points
0
Location
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA
IML Gear Cream!
House passes GOP debt measure; Obama praises compromise plan

By Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen, CNN
UPDATED: 08:57 PM EDT 07.19.11

The U.S. House on Tuesday night passed the "cut, cap and balance" deficit reduction plan backed by tea party conservatives but dismissed by President Barack Obama, who offered strong praise for another proposal put together by a bipartisan group of senators.The so-called Gang of Six plan -- drafted by three Democratic and three Republican senators -- presents a possible compromise to Obama and congressional leaders as they approach a deadline for a deal on cutting federal deficits in order to gain Republican support for raising the federal debt ceiling to avoid an unprecedented default.

It would cut the nation's debt by about $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years -- similar to the president's call for roughly $4 trillion in savings.

Obama called the plan by the Gang of Six senators "broadly consistent" with his own approach to the current debt ceiling crisis because it mixes tax changes, entitlement reforms and spending reductions.

However, the top two Democrats in the Senate said they don't think there is enough time before the government needs to borrow more money on August 2 to pass the comprehensive Gang of Six plan.

Meanwhile, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted 234-190 to pass the "cut, cap and balance" plan that would impose strict caps on all future federal spending while making it significantly tougher to raise taxes -- the solution favored by hard-line conservatives.

The vote was almost completely on party lines for the measure that included the requirement that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution before agreeing to extend the federal debt ceiling.

"While President Obama simply talks tough about cutting spending, House Republicans are taking action," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the vote.

Boehner called the House measure "exactly the kind of 'balanced' approach the White House has asked for -- it provides President Obama with the debt limit increase he's requested while making real spending cuts now and restraining future government spending and debt that are hurting job growth."

Obama has said he would veto such a measure, and Senate Democrats are expected to kill it. On Tuesday, the president said legislators "don't have any more time to engage in symbolic gestures" with time running out to raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid default.

"We have a Democratic president and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts (and) modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component," Obama added.

"We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. And we've got the American people who agree with that balanced approach."

Obama also refused to rule out the fallback plan proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, that would raise the debt ceiling up to $2.5 trillion through the 2012 election.

If Congress fails to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2, Americans could face rising interest rates, a declining dollar and increasingly jittery financial markets, among other things.

The seriousness of the overall situation was reinforced last week when a major credit rating agency, Standard and Poor's, said it was placing the United States' sovereign rating on "CreditWatch with negative implications."

Another major agency -- Moody's Investors Services -- said it would put America's bond rating on review for a possible downgrade.

Under the Gang of Six plan, $500 billion in budget savings would be immediately imposed, with marginal income tax rates reduced and the controversial alternative minimum tax ultimately abolished.

The plan would create three tax brackets with rates from 8% to 12%, 14% to 22%, and 23% to 29% -- part of a new structure designed to generate an additional $1 trillion in revenue.

It would require cost changes to Medicare's growth rate formula, as well as $80 billion in Pentagon cuts.

"We've gone from a Gang of Six to a Mob of 50," an upbeat Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, told reporters as he left a meeting on Capitol Hill where other senators were briefed on the blueprint.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, announced that he had decided to rejoin the group. Coburn had recently withdrawn from the Gang of Six due to a dispute over entitlement cuts, but declared Tuesday that the plan, which now includes $116 billion in entitlement health care cost savings, has "moved significantly, and (is) where we need to be."

A Democratic congressional source said on condition of not being identified that the private meeting with senators to unveil the plan erupted in applause when Coburn, a conservative deficit hawk, announced he had rejoined the Gang of Six.

Other legislators supporting the plan included two conservative Republicans -- Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rep. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, while another GOP conservative, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, raised questions about whether it achieves necessary spending cuts and raises taxes.

A spokesman for Boehner said it was similar in concept to what Boehner and Obama had discussed in their negotiations so far, "but also appears to fall short in some important areas."

Other House Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, also questioned the Gang of Six plan's call for increased tax revenue and commitment to reducing future costs.

Reid, meanwhile, noted that the Constitution requires revenue bills to originate in the House, while his assistant majority leader, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, pointed out that the plan still must be drafted into legislative language and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before it can be considered.

"It's not ready for prime time," said Durbin, one of the Gang of Six negotiators.

Reid said he's open to incorporating some elements of the proposal into a separate bill that he and McConnell are drafting as a fallback option to prevent the U.S. government from defaulting on its debt.

In contrast, the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" plan was widely acknowledged to have virtually no chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate or overcoming a promised presidential veto.

Tuesday's vote allowed Republicans to clearly demonstrate their preference for steps favored by many in the tea party movement even as their leadership seeks a middle ground with Democrats.

The GOP plan would allow an increase in the debt ceiling only after Congress passes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and imposes both major spending cuts and caps on future spending as a percentage of the country's gross domestic product.

Tax increases could be approved only by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress.

The measure would require $111 billion in cuts in fiscal year 2012, while exempting Pentagon spending and popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Federal spending would be capped at less than 20% of gross domestic product by 2021, as opposed to the current 24%.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the proposal "classic Washington posturing and kabuki theater," but Boehner insisted Tuesday that "the president said he wanted a balanced plan (and) that's what this is -- a balanced plan."

"It's pretty clear" to Republicans that this plan is "the most responsible thing that we can do to address our problems," Boehner said. It will ensure the debt crisis "never, ever happens again."

McConnell also praised the "cut, cap and balance" plan, calling it "the kind of tough legislation Washington needs and that Americans want."

However, new public opinion polls showed a majority of Americans wanted legislators to compromise on a deficit reduction deal instead of refusing to yield from their starting positions, such as Republican opposition to any kind of increase in tax revenue.

A CBS News poll released Monday indicates that two-thirds of Americans say any agreement should include spending reductions and tax hikes, with 28% saying a deal should only include spending cuts and 3% saying it should only include tax increases.

According to the survey, there is little partisan divide on the question. More than seven out of 10 Democrats and more than two-thirds of independent voters support a balanced approach, as do 55% of Republicans and 53% of self-described tea party movement supporters.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week had similar findings. The survey indicated that two-thirds of the public supported a deal that included spending cuts as well as tax increases for wealthy Americans and corporations. Nearly nine out of 10 Democrats and two-thirds of independents questioned supported the inclusion of tax increases, with Republicans divided on the issue.

The GOP initiative stands in sharp contrast to Obama's stated preference for a package of roughly $4 trillion in savings over the next decade composed of tax increases on the wealthy and spending reforms in Medicare, Social Security and elsewhere.

Hopes for such a so-called "grand bargain," however, appear to have faded in recent days partly because Republicans continue to insist that any tax increases could derail an already shaky economic recovery.

It was not immediately clear whether the Gang of Six proposal would be able to revive those hopes.

At the heart of the tax dispute has been Obama's call for more revenue by allowing tax cuts from the Bush presidency to expire at the end of 2012 for families making more than $250,000.

The president's ideal plan would keep the lower tax rates for Americans who earn less.

Obama noted last week he is not looking to raise any taxes until 2013 or later. In exchange, the president said, he wants to ensure that the current progressive nature of the tax code is maintained, with higher-income Americans assessed higher tax rates.

But resistance to higher taxes is now a bedrock principle for most Republicans, enforced by conservative crusaders such as political activist Grover Norquist. His group, Americans for Tax Reform, has sponsored a high-profile pledge to oppose any tax increase.

The pledge has been signed by more than 230 House members and 40 senators, almost all of them Republicans.

Despite their differences, leaders from both parties insist they are committed to reaching an agreement that will allow them to raise the debt ceiling before August 2.

McConnell's fallback proposal would give Obama the power to raise the borrowing limit by a total of $2.5 trillion, but also require three congressional votes on the issue before the 2012 general election.

Specifically, Obama would be required to submit three requests for debt ceiling hikes -- a $700 billion increase and two $900 billion increases. Along with each request, the president would have to submit a list of recommended spending cuts exceeding the debt ceiling increase. The cuts would not need to be enacted in order for the ceiling to rise.

Congress would vote on -- and presumably pass -- "resolutions of disapproval" for each request. Obama would likely veto each resolution.

Unless Congress manages to override the president's vetoes -- considered highly unlikely -- the debt ceiling would increase.

The unusual scheme would allow most Republicans and some more conservative Democrats to vote against any debt ceiling hike while still allowing it to clear.

McConnell and Reid are also working on two critical additions to the plan, according to congressional aides in both parties. One would add up to roughly $1.5 trillion in spending cuts agreed to in earlier talks led by Vice President Joe Biden; the other would create a commission meant to find more major spending cuts, tax increases and entitlement reforms.

Changes agreed to by the commission -- composed of an equal number of House and Senate Democrats and Republicans -- would be subject to a strict up-or-down vote by Congress. No amendments would be allowed.

Sources say the panel would be modeled after the Base Closing and Realignment Commission, which managed to close hundreds of military bases that Congress could not otherwise bring itself to shut down.

From CNN.com
 
What a crock.

They take forever and throw in petty utter nonsense seemingly just to foil each other's attempt at getting anything resolved.

Plus, wtf is...

"We've gone from a Gang of Six to a Mob of 50," an upbeat Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, told reporters, blah, blah, BLAAAH!?

Screw you, Joe, and your Mob of 50. This isn't some phuqing Facebook game. "Oh, I sent Sen. Manchin a request to join my Mob." (giggle giggle)

:mad:
 
OK, once again.....

The Gang of 6 Compromise.

This sounds like a "today" deal. It focuses on today, and not the big picture.

And, cutting $3.6 Trillion over the next 10 years?

Medicare, SS, and all other programs --> how is their growth factored in?

$3.6 isn't much, considering the US government has promised to pay out at least $62 Trillion.
 
Sorry fucking Democrats can't fathom a world without massive government and massive spending of our tax money and printed money. Don't get me wrong, the stupid ass Republicans were out of control in the 00's but now their back is against the wall and they want to be reelected.

Obama and the Democrats will fuck this up (even more) and kick this can even further down the road.

The only thing I hate more than a DC Republican is a DC Democrat.
 
3.6T is over 10 years is comical. That's like if I earn $58k/yr, but I spend $75K and I have $187K in credit card debt. Under my plan to balance my budget, I'm gonna cut my spending from $75k/yr to $72k/yr and reduce my cc debt by $3,000 over the next 10 years. Wonderful! I'll just end up bankrupt in 4 years instead of 3.
 
Sorry fucking Democrats can't fathom a world without massive government and massive spending of our tax money and printed money. Don't get me wrong, the stupid ass Republicans were out of control in the 00's but now their back is against the wall and they want to be reelected.

Obama and the Democrats will fuck this up (even more) and kick this can even further down the road.

The only thing I hate more than a DC Republican is a DC Democrat.

Democrats didn't create the problem the GOP did with their low wage neo-liberal economic model, it's been so good to the middle class these past 30 years...:jerkit:

the US government is massive because of conservative republican presidents not from democrats, you need to check the history books...it's grows the most under the GOP

pay a decent wage and the welfare state diminishes, it's that simple...

government is the only thing in-between the people and corporations. decrease the size of government and by default more power goes to the corporations
 
the US government is massive because of conservative republican presidents not from democrats, you need to check the history books...it's grows the most under the GOP



The darling of Conservatives is Ronald Regan. Yes, that man spent a fortune building the military industrial complax and thus, bankrupting the U.S.S.R. Other than that, we haven't had any conservative presidents in the past few decades. And to say ANY president has expanded the US gubmint more than the current clown in chief is absolutely hillarious. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad.
 
Democrats didn't create the problem the GOP did with their low wage neo-liberal economic model, it's been so good to the middle class these past 30 years...:jerkit:

the US government is massive because of conservative republican presidents not from democrats, you need to check the history books...it's grows the most under the GOP

pay a decent wage and the welfare state diminishes, it's that simple...

government is the only thing in-between the people and corporations. decrease the size of government and by default more power goes to the corporations


See^^^ you still think one party is better than the other party. FYI you're about 10 years behind the curve.
 
Any solutions? Suggestions?

If you had...
powarz.jpg

Ul-tee-mutt POWARZ

What would you do to fix everything?
 
IML Gear Cream!
Any solutions? Suggestions?

If you had...
powarz.jpg

Ul-tee-mutt POWARZ???

What would you do to fix everything?

Kill all the politicians and then have fries.
 
I am nobody and I approve "most" (sorry LAM) of these messages

All polititions are evil scum

They are ALL out for themselves.
 
I am nobody and I approve "most" (sorry LAM) of these messages

All polititions are evil scum

They are ALL out for themselves.

that they are...it's what happens when you combine money and politics.

the average net worth of US Senators is something like 5M. which really isn't that much but it's a shit load when compared to the net worth of the people that voted them into office who have net worths of only several hundred thousand dollars in total assets.
 
See^^^ you still think one party is better than the other party. FYI you're about 10 years behind the curve.

I do not think one party is BETTER than the other, both are worthless...one party is full of pussies and the other never does what they say, usually the exact opposite.
 
Any solutions? Suggestions?

If you had...
powarz.jpg

Ul-tee-mutt POWARZ???


What would you do to fix everything?

I'd use the constitutional option. The Congress is not getting the job done here due to Republican obstructionism. It's time for Obama to take unilateral action and utilize the 14th amendment.
 
I do not think one party is BETTER than the other, both are worthless...one party is full of pussies and the other never does what they say, usually the exact opposite.

Exactly, one party tells us what they want to do, so it'll get vetoed.

The other, just does the shit, and says, phuq you, you lazy poor ass Americans!
 
that they are...it's what happens when you combine money and politics.

the average net worth of US Senators is something like 5M. which really isn't that much but it's a shit load when compared to the net worth of the people that voted them into office who have net worths of only several hundred thousand dollars in total assets.


True that
 
Kill all the politicians and then have fries.

Freeeeedom Fries!!!!

heh :D Perhaps something slightly less... final.

Plus, I suspect that wouldn't be very final at all. Another slew of politicians would step into the vacancies. And things could get very sticky for U.S. citizens unless vanishing ninjas were held accountable for the assassinations. :hmmm:

I'd use the constitutional option. The Congress is not getting the job done here due to Republican obstructionism. It's time for Obama to take unilateral action and utilize the 14th amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's a lot to digest. Thanks for the pointer, MDR.
 
It's time for Obama to take unilateral action and utilize the 14th amendment.

To do what? The last time Obama "took action" he plunged us into the biggest deficit we've ever had and doubled the national debt.
 
buy at the money Puts on SPY tomorrow...selling on Aug 3
 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a lot to digest. Thanks for the pointer, MDR.[/QUOTE]


Former President Bill Clinton made headlines Tuesday when he said that, if he was in charge, he would raise the debt ceiling himself under the 14th Amendment, and ???force the courts to stop me.???
The idea of raising the debt limit using the 14th Amendment isn???t new, but President Clinton???s declaration significantly alters the political dynamic, giving President Obama either a powerful wild card to play in the negotiations, or an enormous headache. Which it turns out to be depends on whether you view Clinton???s statement as an off-the-reservation outburst, or a coordinated part of the Obama administration???s negotiating strategy.

While the ability of the President to use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit is debatable (the Congressional Research Service, among others, says he can???t), Clinton???s construct renders that question moot, at least in the short term, by employing the old maxim that it???s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. It also plays to the media???s curious fetish for ???decisiveness,??? demonstrated ad nauseum during the Bush administration. The media, and lots of Americans, loved having a ???decider,??? even when those decisions were disastrous. They???re much more likely to positively view a decisive action that avoids a disaster. Given that the public is finally starting to understand the seriousness of the default threat, cries of ???executive overreach??? would likely be offset by the sense that the move was unavoidable.
Raising the specter of unilateral action gives President Obama some political cover to use the 14th Amendment, but it also has the potential to make it difficult for him to pass up the option, as well. If a default occurs, and constitutional Obama decides the 14th Amendment doesn???t permit him to step in unilaterally, Clinton???s words will become politically disastrous for President Obama. Again, the answer lies in former President Clinton???s motivation.
Figuring that out is no simple task. While former presidents are traditionally reticent to wade, unprompted, into policy discussions, Clinton has been a bit of a loose cannon at times. If he was going rogue here, the former President could be creating a problem for President Obama by making it nearly impossible not to go to the 14th Amendment in the eleventh hour. By placing that arrow in Obama???s quiver, Clinton also moves the chains somewhat on how drastic a compromise President Obama can sell to his own base. If people perceive that the President has this ultimate trump card, it will make it harder for him to accept a deal that includes less (or no) revenues than Democrats are seeking.
However, President Obama has demonstrated a willingness to leverage Clinton???s political popularity and skill in the past, so there???s an excellent chance that this was an intentional move, equal parts trial balloon and warning shot. As ABC News points out, the White House has been rather strong in saying that the President won???t use the 14th Amendment:
???It???s pretty categorical. We???re not exploring this. That???s not an option,??? White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. ???There is no mechanism that allows us to get around the fact that on August 2nd, if the measures haven???t been taken, we go into default.???
However, the administration???s public statements are necessarily designed to thread a series of ever-smaller needles. First and foremost, they need to avoid panicking world markets, which jumping the 14th gun would surely do. They also don???t want to signal to Republicans that there???s an escape hatch from making the grand bargain the President seeks. In a nutshell, even if he wants to, the President really can???t say he???ll use that nuclear option until he???s actually going to.
President Clinton, of course, is another matter. By setting up the 14th Amendment dominoes, he gives President Obama a chance to gauge public and media reaction to such a move, without damaging his bargaining position or influencing markets. Making the threat by proxy actually might enhance the President???s bargaining position, if reaction to the idea is positive. Making such a decisive move, in the face of economic disaster, could be a huge political win for him, much more so than dragging Republicans a few feet into a compromise that both sides will hate.
On the flip side, if Democrats perceive that the President could do this, it will make it tough for the President to resort to the fallback McConnell/Reid plan, which contains no additional revenue. Jay Carney framed that plan as the ???eject??? button yesterday, but invoking the 14th Amendment renders the McConnell/Reid plan politically obsolete.
In the end, the 14th Amendment nuclear option might be the closest thing to a win-win. It was a mistake for the Republicans to tie deficit reduction to the debt limit, and many would argue that it was a mistake for President Obama to negotiate anything under threat of default. Invoking the 14th Amendment gets everyone out of this hole. It gives Republicans a way out that allows them to stick to their principles, while they lambaste President Obama to their base for overreaching. It gives Democrats a win for standing up for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. President Obama might take a hit for overreaching, but would likely get a bigger ???decider bump,??? and the American people would get to avoid a global economic catastrophe.
 
To do what? The last time Obama "took action" he plunged us into the biggest deficit we've ever had and doubled the national debt.

Remember where it started.....
--
Nearly 10 Years Ago Today, The U.S. Began Borrowing Billions To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts

By Zaid Jilani on Jul 20, 2011


As debates about deficit reduction continued to be heavily tilted toward cutting spending, which threatens to undermine a fragile recovery, rather than raising revenue from those who can afford it, it???s important to remember the budgetary impact of the Bush tax cuts.

Nearly 10 years ago today, on August 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Treasury Department was tapping $51 billion of credit in order to pay for the budgetary cost of the first round of Bush tax cuts??? rebate checks. The AP reported at the time that Democratic Party opponents of the tax cuts worried that they???d return government budgets to ???red ink???:

The opponents of the tax cut turned out to be right. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts combined have blown a $2.5 trillion hole in America???s budget and created deficits stretching on for years.

--Link at top
 
Sorry Albob...that's all GWB and supply-side economics


Oh my fucking God, you've finally gone around the bend this time. What in the holy Hell did Bush have to do with Obamacare and all the other spending that's been going on for the past 2 1/2 years???

Yes, George Bush was one of the worst presidents in history as far as spending is concerned, I've never denied that fact but goddamn, can you for ONCE admitt that Obama is every bit as bad???
 
Oh my fucking God, you've finally gone around the bend this time. What in the holy Hell did Bush have to do with Obamacare and all the other spending that's been going on for the past 2 1/2 years???

Yes, George Bush was one of the worst presidents in history as far as spending is concerned, I've never denied that fact but goddamn, can you for ONCE admitt that Obama is every bit as bad???

It's going to get worse and worse. The next president will spend even more to keep things going as usual until we finally can't sustain it anymore. Period.
We need to fire everyone in DC, house and senate. Put term limits in effect. Pay them 40k a year like an average joe. Take away all the health and insurance they have now and make them get their own. No more pay or benefits after you leave office. And the main thing, spend less then we take in. Yes I know that means cutting ALOT of stuff out, but it's the only way. If we don't, we are done as a country.
 
Clinton???s construct renders that question moot, at least in the short term, by employing the old maxim that it???s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

That's Grace Hopper right there! :bow:
 
We need to fire everyone in DC, house and senate. Put term limits in effect. Pay them 40k a year like an average joe. Take away all the health and insurance they have now and make them get their own. No more pay or benefits after you leave office.

Agreed on all counts. If anyone else was paid 175k per year and yet couldn't find the time to get their job done... :rolleyes:
 
Oh my fucking God, you've finally gone around the bend this time. What in the holy Hell did Bush have to do with Obamacare and all the other spending that's been going on for the past 2 1/2 years???

Yes, George Bush was one of the worst presidents in history as far as spending is concerned, I've never denied that fact but goddamn, can you for ONCE admitt that Obama is every bit as bad???

Not a penny has been spent on Obamacare to date. To date, Obama has spent $884 billion on stuff like the stimulus and cash for clunkers. The cost for extending the Bush tax cuts was $905 billion which I am sure you were for. So, he has spent $884 billion on things you have disagreed with, which is 6% of our debt, if we factor in the tax cuts it's 12.3%. I don't see that as wild spending. In fact, if you count winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will eventually be saving us money. I know the right likes to clamor that Obama has spent us into this mess, but this soundbite is not rooted in reality and certainly not supported by any numbers.

Data from yahoo.com
 
3.7 trillion over 10 years is still only a drop in the bucket....the national debt clock shows a deficit of over 21 trillion total by 2021....so this only brings the deficit back down to 17 trillion......it's not enough
 
Back
Top