1 Make him.

2 $1.5 Trillion in (fake) cuts is bullshit.   pure, unadulterated bullshit.

3

Instead, White House officials are focused on a plan being developed by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell

I apologize for my languague, but fuck you to hell Mitch McConnell.

WTF are you doing.

The Republicans need a pass a take it or  leave it bill and they need to be unfied. Now Mitch McConnell is working on his Directive 66 bill with the democrats? Great. Just great.

4

The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would look at other ways to reduce the federal debt, including possible entitlements and new tax revenue.

How many freaking panels have there been in the past 2 years alone?

 

5 Mitch McConnell needs to be unseated as Senate Minority leader.

6 1 Make him.       Agreed.  Send it, watch him veto it, and have him explain his actions.  Maybe, just maybe, someone can ask Obama when he will put forth his "plan?"

7 Everyone seems to assume the Senate would not pass the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  Is that for sure?  Not enough moderate Dems who worry about 2012 to go along?

Would Reid not even allow it to come up for a vote?

8

Ugh!  I can't stand it any more! 

9 How will we ever buy votes with OPM, if we can't have a signed blank check. Geeze! Those right wingers hate the whittle chillen.

10 5 Mitch McConnell needs to be unseated as Senate Minority leader.           SUSAN COLLINS!!!

11
"You can't get corporate jets, you can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."
-- President Spendy McFiscalpants
February, 2009

12 >> The plan would also create a new congressional panel that would look at other ways to reduce the federal debt, including possible entitlements and new tax revenue.

Oh for fuck's sake. Just what we need ... another commission to produce recommendations that get ignored while we speed down the road to insolvency.

13 I am the pilot of this national aircraft.  I know how to fly.  But I've never learned to land.  ALLAH AHKBAR!!!

14 Oh.  And...

Would you like malaise on your usury burger?

15 Go back to the month to month extensions. Make him fight this crap every month. Every month means our terrible story is compared to Europe melting down. Obama wants this deal down before the PIIGs are allowed to default. He and the useful ididots will falsely claim to have avoided a similar fate. Hemmer away at the fact that he wants tax increases hidden, and will not commit to cutting anything. He's thus far bandied about figures and threatend to hit healthcare providers even more with Medicare reimbursement rates.

16

Oh for fuck's sake. Just what we need ... another commission to produce recommendations that get ignored while we speed down the road to insolvency.

 

And it'll be manned by professors.

17

Make him.       Agreed.  Send it, watch him veto it, and have him explain his actions.  Maybe, just maybe, someone can ask Obama when he will put forth his "plan?"

You know what his response will be? He'll point to Mitch McConnel and other Republicans who are working with him and then blame the impass on the right wing, and the media will agree and repeat it every single day.

If we want to win this we need a unified party in the house and senate. Why are there no democrats working with the republicans on preventing a debt ceiling raise with no cuts? Why are we the only ones who reach across the aisle?

18 "The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future."

Now let's break it down and translate.


"The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable..."

= continue current spending levels


"...while reducing our ability to invest in our future."

= spend more.

19

Why are we the only ones who reach across the aisle?

 

 

Because they don't have to.  Who's gonna call them on it?

20 Oh.  And...
Would you like malaise on your usury burger?
Posted by: Hussein

Hmm, I've seen that somewhere before ...

21 Everyone seems to assume the Senate would not pass the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  Is that for sure?  Not enough moderate Dems who worry about 2012 to go along?

Would Reid not even allow it to come up for a vote?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

 

You answered your own question. Besides, several of them have already bailed. They're coasting and don't give a crap about voting aginst it. Reid will just monkey with it, and perhaps schedule an up/down vote late.

22 "...while reducing our ability to invest in our future."

The Dems are incapable of proving that excessive spending sprees stimulate the economy.

23

brb updating Ryan shrine

Also, dork the Dems.  Dork them in the squeakhole. 

 

24 Instead, White House officials are focused on a plan being developed by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell

Not to worry about Scroto-Bama or Bitch McConnell. That "plan" of surrendering bu McConnell has zero chance of passing the House. ZERO

25

We cannot afford for Ryan to become resigned. He must stay in the fight!

I'd be screaming for Ryan and Rand to pair up on a ticket together except we need both exactly where they are now.

26
Obama doesn't want to just keep on spending and drive us off a cliff.

Obama wants to "floor it" and race to the cliff like a bat out of hell.

27

 "The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors

But but but I was told there was a lockbox! 

I would love someone *koff*jaketapper*koff* to ask why SS checks are at risk if the money is all in a lockbox.

 

28 7 Everyone seems to assume the Senate would not pass the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  Is that for sure?  Not enough moderate Dems who worry about 2012 to go along?

Would Reid not even allow it to come up for a vote?


He supposedly will allow it to come up for a vote, but he will make sure his caucus is whipped to say no. Hoyer is doing the same thing on the House side.

29 On a positive note, did anyone see Marco Rubio on Meet the Press. He did a great job. He didn't accept Bob Scheiffer's loaded questions and would refute all of Shceiffer's arguments.

30 Fine, F* you , VETO IT THEN. Let the US default. I don't care any more. I have determined, I will do my utmost to make sure my son will not have to solve this problem. If that means collapse and rebuild is the only path left...so be it.

31 Just say no.  The deal sucks.  Instead of 1.5 trillion in cuts over ten years how about we do 150 billion in cuts and raise the debt limit 150 billion this year. 

32 Let the shitpile that's DC and the federal reserve burn.  Let it burn to the ground.  Then Americans can pick up the pieces and start over again.  It's time.

33 The rich.  Don't forget the rich.  Gotta punish the rich or the lib base will go batshit crazy. 
Bastards have private jets, for crying out loud!  Does that sound like the America you want to raise your children in?

34 Did White House Snub Fraud Fighter?
The CEO of IBM offered the Obama administration a free software program that would have cut Medicare and Medicaid fraud by almost a trillion dollars, but he was turned down – twice.

35 29 On a positive note, did anyone see Marco Rubio on Meet the Press. He did a great job. He didn't accept Bob Scheiffer's loaded questions and would refute all of Shceiffer's arguments.

Yes. It is always heartening to see a Republican who is informed and willing to challenge the MFM.

36

Obama wants to "floor it" and race to the cliff like a bat out of hell.

 

And bail out at the last minute to run the Execrable Global Overlords organization.

37

Everyone seems to assume the Senate would not pass the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.  Is that for sure?  Not enough moderate Dems who worry about 2012 to go along?

Would Reid not even allow it to come up for a vote?

It might be able to get 51 votes but for that you'd first need all 47 R's (and this might be easier said than done) and 13 D's to break the filibuster.

In theory this would seem to be a bill that could be considered under the reconciliation plan (since it would be cutting spending) but how's it going to get offered under reconciliation? I assume that the Senate would have to vote to consider it under reconciliation and for that you still need D votes.

38 Joe to the rescue again!! I just called girl scout troop 523 and asked them to give the spineless party some balls Conservative congress critters my skinny can't be seen unless I have two wallets white ass

39 Ill starve the government of revenue by losing my job. That el learn em!

40
This is why "140%" is a value that should be hammered into people's heads.

For every dollar Obama receives in taxes, he'll spend it PLUS deficit-spend an additional 40%.

There will be no debt reduction. Washington has a spending addiction.

41 The DOOM is thick this July Monday. Like I said: there was so much DOOM I couldn't keep up with it all.

42

On a positive note, did anyone see Marco Rubio on Meet the Press. He did a great job. He didn't accept Bob Scheiffer's loaded questions and would refute all of Shceiffer's arguments.

Face the Nation. The full vid is up at NBC. Schieffer was really getting on his nerves. It's the most irritated I think I've ever seen Rubio.

43

It sure would be a lot easier to win this battle if we had the Senate to, because Harry Reid isn't going to let anything get to Obama's desk to veto. That way the Republicans can't say Obama's veto sent us into default.

 

44 Mitch McConnell is despicable.

45 I am quite pessimistic on this whole thing.  Even when they were talking about $2.5T in cuts in return for the same amount of debt increase.  Because the cuts are always over 10 years and the increase is just to get all of the politicos past the election.  And continued deficits beyond that.

Math, Reality and Gravity will not be denied.  Boned we are.

46 It sure would be a lot easier to win this battle if we had the Senate

The only way to win is not to play.  NO DEAL

47 This isn't at all about doing what's right for the country.  Not in the least.  It is all about jockey for position to see who will look the least bad when the shit hits the fan.  These assholes will not abandon their most vocal bases, no matter what.  For them the gravy train will keep on running and they are convinced that they will collect their ridiculous retirements no matter what because that will be guaranteed by their own self interest kind.   They will be the lily white cream floating on top of the cesspit no matter what happens to the rest of the country.

48 $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.

Really Mitch 150billion/yr with no actual guarantee that Congress will stick to it? F* YOU TOO MITCH. How about putting something on the table that actually might help?

49
but our BIG problem right now is Herman Cain -- he's hurting people's feelings and shit

50 McConnell is part of the establishment RINOS that got us into this mess in the first place. He should have never been allowed a leadership position.

51 "The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011" (HR 2560)

52 $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.

Really Mitch 150billion/yr with no actual guarantee that Congress will stick to it? F* YOU TOO MITCH. How about putting something on the table that actually might help?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 18, 2011 12:58 PM (0q2P7)

S&P already said the $4 trillion is the minimum to keep US debt from going to junk status.

53

"The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future," said a just-released statement of administration policy.

I hate to shout this, but THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE CORE COMMITMENTS TO SENIORS, MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND THE MOST VULNERABLE except those things found in the Constitution, which actually are applicable to everyone.

Oh, I forgot. General Welfare Clause as interpreted by the statists.  My bad. 

54 The suggestion of a six month plan is a good one.  Let this come up again in the middle of the presidential election.  Ah, fuck it.  Let it burn.  

55 McConnell is a doddering old fool!  When is this crap going to stop?  1.5T in cuts over the next 10 years?  That will never happen, and even if it did, it wouldn't even start to pay the interest we owe.  Another commission to look at cuts and "revenue increases"?  What kind of damned fool would buy into such B.S. as this?  Damn them all straight to hell for what they've done to my country!

56 but our BIG problem right now is Herman Cain -- he's hurting people's feelings and shit Posted by: soothsayer Yea, you tell em sooth.

57 McConnell needs his hog-jowly old ass thrown out in the street next election. That somebitch needs to receive a million emails about this clusterfuck surrender he's selling.
Firing him is the only thing that will make him let loose of Ried and Obama's cocks.

58 47 I am quite pessimistic on this whole thing.  Even when they were talking about $2.5T in cuts in return for the same amount of debt increase.  Because the cuts are always over 10 years and the increase is just to get all of the politicos past the election.  And continued deficits beyond that.

Math, Reality and Gravity will not be denied.  Boned we are.

Not in this House bill they're not. That's one of the reasons the Dems (and perhaps some moderate Rs?) won't touch it.

59

Republican response should be to every question every fucking day:

Then show us YOUR FUCKING PLAN, since we can't get one you like.

60 Wall Street has already said that the flight to safety in the bond market will be only temporary and will likely only last three to six months.  Once the Euro dominoes start falling, the U.S. won't be far behind, imo.  Then the only safe haven will be metals and if that happens governments will restrict ownership of that.  After that there won't be a fan - only shit.

61 It time to implement the Emergency Accountability Tax for Stabilizing Homeland and International Trusts.

62 Also, I read an article a few days ago that claimed the McConnel plan to give Obama that authority wasn't constitutional. so there's that

63

Then show us YOUR FUCKING PLAN, since we can't get one you like.

That's racist!

64 When Obama says "invest in our future", you need to remember that he's really saying "tax the working class to pay for entitlement spending". Because right now the government is basically in the business of taxing private-sector workers to pay for three things: Medicare, Social Security, and Defense. In time, SS and Medicare will crowd out even Defense spending (and of the three, only Defense is enumerated in the Constitution as a requirement of the Federal Government).

President Obama has drawn his line in the sand: under his watch, spending will only increase. To him and his fellow-travelers, bankrupting the United States of America is a secondary concern to "social justice". In the short term, all the GOP can do is block him, hinder him, and restrain him to the extent possible. We cannot truly begin a rollback until we eject him from office. (God help us all if he wins another term.)

The GOP and the Democrats see very different -- and fundamentally incompatible -- futures for this country. Over time, I expect those different visions to drive us ever further apart, perhaps to the point that social cohesion is no longer even possible.

65
McConnell is the loser who couldn't successfully fight McCainFeingold in Court, ya?

66 sifty, i'd vote for that

67

"The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future," said a just-released statement of administration policy."

Look at that phrase:

"...ability to invest in our future."

 

What does this mean in context of governing? Hell, what does this mean in Obamaspeak?

I have single word for this phrase:  Spending.  When I buy beenie-weenies for lunch I'm investing in my furture.  If I buy heroin for my next hit I'm investing in my future.

There's no limit to my investing in my future as long as there is no limit to my access to money.

68 Math is simply hatin' on a black man.

69 Paul Ryan for Senate minority leader. Yeah, I know, but if King Putt can rule by decree and render Congress a rubber stamp, then what the hell?

70 Maybe it's just me, but I get a feeling the Republicans have turned a corner and has seized the high ground in this battle and obama and the dems are on the defensive. Now we have to go in for the kill.

71 Religion of peace goes global!

"BEIJING—Chinese police "gunned down" several rioters after four people were killed in an attack on a police station in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, the state media reported, in what appeared to one of the most violent incidents in the mostly Muslim region since it was shaken by ethnic rioting in 2009."

72

"Cutting the deficit will hamper the WH efforts from cutting the budget."  (Mark Steyn on the House trying to cut the WH budget).  Yeesh!

 

I know it's been a few days since I've said this, but I really hate this administration and the Democrat party.  They are such fricking hypocrites.

73 72 Maybe it's just me, but I get a feeling the Republicans have turned a corner and has seized the high ground in this battle and obama and the dems are on the defensive. Now we have to go in for the kill.     Don't worry, we'll fuck it up.

74 If Paul Ryan keeps talking like that he's going to be the next victim ... er.. object of a certain Ewok's disgusting fantasies.

75 When Obama Hope and Changed me out of a job, it reduced my ability to meet my core commitments to pay my bills and feed my family.

76 Pass a bill that defines the order of payment:

1) Military abroad
2) SS/Mediscare/Veterans
3) debt payments
4) all military below O-3.
5) courts - dock pay 10%
6) rest of military - dock 20% (REMFs)
7) FBI etc - pay freeze/dock 20%.
999) EPA, etc.
1000) Barry's jet. Michelle's 2000 calorie burger, etc.

77 Religion of peace goes global! "BEIJING—Chinese police "gunned down" several rioters after four people were killed in an attack on a police station in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, the state media reported, in what appeared to one of the most violent incidents in the mostly Muslim region since it was shaken by ethnic rioting in 2009." Posted by: Marcus at July 18, 2011 01:09 PM (CHrmZ) Maybe all them Billion of Chicoms are our only hope in the inevitable fight with the Muslims World Wide?

78
All of the Democrats' bills create jobs, lower the deficit, increase national security, and save the planet!

All of the Republicans' bills do this: "undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future."

Funny, that.

79 DeMint should take charge on this. McConnell is a useless, clueless load.

80 Maybe all them Billion of Chicoms are our only hope in the inevitable fight with the Muslims World Wide? Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 18, 2011 01:10 PM (i6RpT) Well, as a Jew, my Sunday dinners were always Chinese take out, so I'll go along with that if America goes down.

81 I'll veto your plan and the media will love me for it!  How's my ass taste, McConnell?

82

Morons chasin' their tails

1-McConnell/Boehner has betrayed us;

2-???

3-Therefore, vote GOP, its our only chance.

83

Here's what Steyn was referencing (from The Hill):

Proposed House cuts to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) budget will hurt administration efforts to cut the deficit, the White House argues. 

The Obama administration made the argument in comments on H.R. 2434, the 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. That bill could be on the House floor as early as next week, and would decrease funding for the EOP from $705 million to $640 million. 

"The level of resources provided in the bill would significantly impact the EOP's role in assisting the president in carrying out his constitutional duties as head of the executive branch, including protecting national security interests, developing policies to address the challenges facing the nation, reducing the deficit and spending taxpayer dollars more cost-effectively, and managing the Federal agencies," the administration said in a statement of administration policy (SAP).

The statement also rejected a proposed cut of $109 million to the IRS, saying that would require 4,200 staff reductions. These cuts, it argued, would cost the government $4 billion in revenues, as tax enforcement efforts would be stunted.

"The level of funding provided for the IRS would seriously degrade the quality of services provided to taxpayers and would increase the deficit," the SAP said.

H.R. 2434 would provide $20 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Treasury and other agencies, $2 billion less than the Obama administration requested. Nearly $1 billion in these cuts would be taken out of Treasury alone.

Despite the White House protest, these cuts are roughly in line with cuts made to other departments in various House spending bills that have been taken up so far. The only exceptions are spending bills for military construction and the Defense Department; the House proposed spending increases in those two bills.

The White House statement on H.R. 2434 warned that officials would recommend a presidential veto of the bill, particularly due to language that would undermine last year's healthcare law and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

 

My tiny, cold, black heart is filled with antipathy towards these asshats.

84 The WH once again uses the phrase "winning the future":

"... H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future."

Oh, come on!

85 Well, as a Jew, my Sunday dinners were always Chinese take out, so I'll go along with that if America goes down. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 18, 2011 01:13 PM (UlUS4) Same here on both counts.

86 Well, as a Jew, my Sunday dinners were always Chinese take out, so I'll go along with that if America goes down.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton

 

I think that at that point, 'take out' will assume an entirely different meaning

87 3) debt payments

Per the constitution, that has to be #1.

88

Instead, White House officials are focused on a plan being developed by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, one that allow Obama to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling in exchange for about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.

1.5 trillion over 10 years (assuming the "cuts" would be real, which is pure fantasy) = 150 billion per year.

The spending cuts would be akin to pissing in the wind. 

89

Dick O, his regime and the dems need chaos this next election.  That's what they're working for.  Pure and simple.  It's the only way, they feel, that they can attain total power over us.  Unfortunately, there's a few repubs like McConnell that will play right into their plans.  They're using the old-school senate collegiality against us.

90

Since when is it the Federal Government's responsibility to "invest in our future"?

91 I think that McConnell should delegate the deal making duties to the load in his diaper.  The load would do a much better job.

92 I won the future.  at least for a little while.

93 ... while reducing our ability to invest in our future ... The only future in which you and the government "invests", sir, is the future in which the growth of government continues without let or hinderance. Anything else is just so much jive ... and jive talking - until recently - is unbecoming in a President.

94

Oh, come on!

Winning the Future?  WTF - yeah, What The Fuck? or We're Terminally Fucked!

95 Maybe all them Billion of Chicoms are our only hope in the inevitable fight with the Muslims World Wide?

China sells the organs of prisoners. I don't think they'll sit back and let the muz pull their usual bullshit.

China will box the jihadis and send them to North Korea as Happy Meals.



_{Also, shsshhhhh! We're supposed to hug the muz and make them love us.}

96 Frankly, it would be worth increasing the debt limit just for a balanced budget amendment (without even the cut and cap stuff). If there is a play to save America fiscally it is to fundamentally alter the Federal government's budgeting capability. Unfortunately, we are nearing the point of no return. I think our chances of avoiding economic disaster are probably 1 in 20.

97 "The bill would undercut the Federal Government's ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future

It's a talking points/focus group bonanza up in the hizzouse! Seriously, it's hard to believe anybody buys that kind of bullshit pandering anymore, and yet, here we are.

98 Quit worrying about your goddamn SS checks, Baby Boomers. You'll be paid in full with brand new "Obama Bux." And you can cash them at your local Carousel. Be sure to wear your white unitard.

99 Didn't know it was ever the job of the feds to invest in anything, "the future" included. The couple jobs they have are clearly defined. And providing for the common bling, health care, day care, drug care, etc... ad nauseum isn't on the list.

100 Did you see this summary of Obama's fiscal policies/actions (also via a link at NRO)? 

101 Posted by: Al at July 18, 2011 01:10 PM (nBfuO)

24th Amendment requires that debt goes to place #1.  Otherwise I largely agree.

And, yes, it's time for the House to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance, and then let the Senate explain why they won't vote for it.  And, after they've voted for it, it's time for them to go on recess (or at least refuse to put anything on the calendar) until the Senate has voted on the plan one way or the other.

And Mitch McConnell needs to go back to private life.  I cannot believe (okay, I can believe it, but it makes me furious) that he squealed in surrender faster than the French in a pillow fight over this thing.  And now, despite the outcry against it, he's actively working with Harry Mother-loving* Reid to actually implement his plan.

*- No, even as mad as I am, I don't curse.  I'll euphamize all day long, but I won't curse.

102

This is why McConnell and his BS are going nowhere

We could see which direction the Senate was going back when the leadership positions were being announced at the start of this congress.

It looked like the same was happening in the House, but thanks to the 2010 elections there are a LOT more real conservatives in the House and they are not taking this kind of surrender shit in stride. Boner is not able to shuffle them aside like McConnell does DeMint the Senate.

103

It's fun, in a macbabre manner, to see many of the same idiots who declare with absolute certainty that there is no way to enfocre drug laws, or there is now way to enforce immigation laws and that we should not try. And yet, they have this bizarre confidence that there will be no problem collecting this huge bonanza of taxes that they've been deprived of ever since the evvvviill Boossh enacted his tax cuts.

All of this is dependent upon a static model; that collection will be easy and that increased taxation will have no ill effects. It's amazing. And I'm hearing it from people like by idiot BiL who incorporated his business using his wife as a corporate officer. I asked him why he thought millions more won't take measures at least as dramtic as you? No answer.

104

The statement also rejected a proposed cut of $109 million to the IRS, saying that would require 4,200 staff reductions. These cuts, it argued, would cost the government $4 billion in revenues, as tax enforcement efforts would be stunted.

"The level of funding provided for the IRS would seriously degrade the quality of services provided to taxpayers and would increase the deficit," the SAP said.

Yeah, cuz they've done such a STELLAR job of collecting back taxes from people like Charlie Rangel and Al Sharpton....

105

What's the current exchange rate between Obamabux and Mugabemoolah?

106 1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years, when new debt added during that same time will be 15 trillion. Mitch McConnell is not a serious person.

107 Since Obama will not agree to cut all that amount of spending now, he should only get his increase in increments. So only cutting $200B means he only gets a $200B increase.

108 Government has lost enough of my money over the years with its "investments".

I haven't received one Thank You card from those third generation welfare mommas I have been supporting or their kids.

109 The CEO of IBM offered the Obama administration a free software program that would have cut Medicare and Medicaid fraud by almost a trillion dollars, but he was turned down – twice. Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at July 18, 2011 12:51 PM (e8kgV) Well, maybe. IBM don't do nothing for free, first of all. I am sure that if there was an offer, somewhere IBM was getting paid - maybe the software was free but it only runs on IBM hardware - or it could only be run if all the Medicaid/Medicare billing was run on IBM by IBM services or something like that. Second, a trillion in savings from fraud detection? Really? Over how long? Sorry, I am not buying this story. IBM is trying to influence a decision somewhere. That's the real story.

110 "McConnell is a useless, clueless load." Well, yeah. That's why he's a GOP leader in the Senate! Fools and knaves at the wheel, as we move ever closer to the abyss . . .

111 GE didn't pay any taxes last year. Charge them $109 million to keep those IRS slug in business.

112
So only cutting $200B means he only gets a $200B increase.

That's what The Kraut was suggesting last week. Charles said $500B, though.

113

Yeah, cuz they've done such a STELLAR job of collecting back taxes from people like Charlie Rangel and Al Sharpton....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

 

I resent this slur! The Treasury has done a wonderful job.

Example: I made sure that no one can use the defense that I used to dodge interest and penalties. Wait.

114
I woulda named the bill "Cut The Crap Or Screw."

115 115 Posted by: tsj017 at July 18, 2011 01:23 PM (4YUWF) That's why I would be in favor of some sort of intra-party coup. Replace McConnell with DeMint.

116 I wonder if McConnell understands his political career is over if some version of what he is recommending passes?  I know he doesn't care about the Republic but at least most of these guys can be counted on to save their own skins.

117 GE didn't pay any taxes last year. Charge them $109 million to keep those IRS slug in business.

Posted by: sifty

 

Let's see the Obama re-election campaign invest in the future. They can kick in a donation to debt service.

118

China will box the jihadis and send them to North Korea as Happy Meals.
===

Wow!  So, you're saying they're even more despicable than Herman Cain?

 

119 McConnell's career is over regardless.

He has shown his yellow streak too often. He might as well pull an Arlen Sphincter now and get it over with. And take McCain with ya, you old lemon partier.

120 124 Posted by: Harry the Hobo at July 18, 2011 01:25 PM (mQMnK) That don't sound kosher.

121

I haven't received one Thank You card from those third generation welfare mommas I have been supporting or their kids.

Don't hold your breath, Whitey!  "Thank you" does not exist in the Official Lexicon of Welfare Mommas.  They are entitled to your money because you are racist and your ancestors were all slaveholders.  You owe it to them! 

122 McConnell's career is over regardless.

Unfortunately, History indicates you're (probably) wrong.

123 Wow!  So, you're saying they're even more despicable than Herman Cain?

Just barely.

124 Do only spineless Republicans get elected to the Senate? Or do they have their spines removed once they're elected?

125

That's why I would be in favor of some sort of intra-party coup. Replace McConnell with DeMint.

 

Jim DeMint caused the recession...

126 History can suck it.

heh

127 The GOP and the Democrats see very different -- and fundamentally incompatible -- futures for this country. Over time, I expect those different visions to drive us ever further apart, perhaps to the point that social cohesion is no longer even possible.

Posted by: Monty

It seems this scenario is made more likely by the GOP acting as the Dem-lite party. Conservatism when honestly applied works, and works quite well in almost any facet of life. Compassionate conservatism has all of the failure of progressivism and none of the supposed political advantages.

Right now if the GOP doesn't 'heighten the contrast,' ala Alinsky, and actually put into effect classical liberalism, we're not getting out of this chronic recessionary period. If we get more compassionate conservatism, we're headed for a serious bit of trouble.

128 118 That's what The Kraut was suggesting last week. Charles said $500B, though.

The House Rs have always said that, for every dollar they increase the debt limit, they should receive that amount or greater in cuts. Dr. K, though, is advocating a clean bill without the matching cuts scenario.

129 Posted by: sifty at July 18, 2011 01:28 PM (ECjvn)

Well, I'm on your side.  I'm just pointing out that incumbents are only very rarely voted out of office, especially at the national level.

130 Why Did Congress Waste Six Months?

The most obvious problem is unemployment. The best way short-term to drive the deficit down is to spur growth and get Americans back to work. Has anyone noticed that Americans with jobs can provide for their families, put money into the economy -- and, oh yes, pay taxes that increase revenues and thus cut the deficit?

There are some entirely obvious steps government can take. Ramping up public works spending is a twofer: It creates jobs upfront and provides the nation's businesses and workers the ways and means to boost their own productivity down the road.

/Nevermind that Obama's "stimulus" was supposed to have solved the unemployment dilema by now.  Hope you pea-ons don't remember that. 

131 Unfortunately, History indicates you're (probably) wrong.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 18, 2011 01:27 PM (8y9MW)

Unfortunately true. All the Morons should check out the elections of 1936 and see what can happen when the public is "bribed" with its own money and the ruling apparatchiks control the press.

132 I just watched the Rubio/Scheiffer Face the Nation exchange and I came away with this:
People like Scheiffer, and I mean the majority of the left, they don't believe the shit they spew because of any conviction.  They believe it because other people believe it, because their colleagues believe it.  There was no depth of belief in what Scheiffer said.  He was just repeating what others had said - what Obama and team had said.  The left believes what it believes without any consideration given to logic, rationale or feasibility.  But they believe it with all their being.

133
is he?

then he sucks, too

134 It's a dirty bill, especially the balanced budget amendment. Read the text for yourself, but it includes too many legislative restrictions on collecting revenue in the future. It would be unwise for Congress (any Congress, dem or rep) to cede this power to the executive branch. All of the previous Republican balanced budget initiatives are fine with me, but this one is intentionally partisan. My Senator (Udall D-CO) has supported the previous BB amendment from this Congress, but he (and I) could never support this one.

135

#16 - the commission would be full of economics/professor types who will strongly recommend tax hikes and little spending cuts as the cure

#24 - the issue isn't that McConnell's plan will pass the House.   The issue is that it gives the Dems a way out of anything the House passes.  If the Sentate passes some form of McConnell's plan the President/Dems/MSM will be full court blaming the GOP House for the shutdown

Agree with most here - House should pass it and at least try to put the Dems/O on the spot.

 

 

136

The House can pass the bill, then send it on to the Senate to do what they will with it.  At that point, the ball is in Harry Reid's court, and we all know that little Barry doesn't want to miss his Birthday Party....

So he can throw a tantrum all he wants to, but if the House doesn't play along, he isn't going to get his wish.

Have fun yelling and screaming, stomping up and down, and holding your breath until you turn blue, Bambi.

The fact of the matter is that WE DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU.....

(My kids always HATED it when I told them that)

137 _{130 Do only spineless Republicans get elected to the Senate? Or do they have their spines removed once they're elected?}

Years of free cars, planes, booze, drugs, security, luxury homes, and whores wear them down into Democrats.

138

China will box the jihadis and send them to North Korea as Happy Meals.

Relax, this is just China's enlightened way of providing "shovel-ready" jobs for its expanding populace.

 

139 139 is he?

then he sucks, too

If you're talking to me, that's my understanding from what I've read and heard, yes. That scenario is far too lenient towards Obama.

140
_{Well, I'm on your side.}

Don't let that kinda information get around.

141 In short, veto the bill and wait for the Reps to cave. The pressure from the private sector is immense. The first day the stock market drops 1000 points, they will capitulate, as Bush/Reps did with TARP.

142 _{Do only spineless Republicans get elected to the Senate? Or do they have their spines removed once they're elected?}

Years of free cars, planes, booze, drugs, security, luxury homes, and whores wear them down into Democrats.

Posted by: sifty

 

The US Senate: The place where ideas go to die.

143
yeah, it lets Obama off the hook without getting something in exchange

144 By saying he will Veto "Cut, Cap, and Balance" he is giving those Dems in Red Districts the OK to vote for it.

145 The US Senate: The place where ideas go to die. by design, but also by design where financial control was not placed.

146
The Tea Party isn't going away, much to the chagrin of linguini like McConnell, and we'll be waiting at the ballot box with some nice surprises.

147 White House officials are focused on a plan being developed by Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell,

Can someone give the esteemed senator from Kentucky his tapioca so he'll shut the fuck up?

148
Jordan, are you Jason's twin other personality?

149 International Business Times and elsewhere: Ratings agency Moody's on Monday suggested the United States should eliminate its statutory limit on government debt to reduce uncertainty among bond holders. The United States is one of the few countries where Congress sets a ceiling on government debt, which creates "periodic uncertainty" over the government's ability to meet its obligations, Moody's said in a report. "We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty," Moody's analyst Steven Hess wrote in the report... Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters So in other words, if you refuse to cut up the credit card of the largest spendthrift on the planet, you earn a higher credit rating from Moody's. If this seems mad, it is.

150 ... meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable ... And not a one of these "core commitments" can be found anywhere in the Constitution. Imagine that ...

151 53 "The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011" (HR 2560)

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 18, 2011 01:00 PM (o2lIv)

Thanks, 80'sBaby, for the link.

Do I read it correctly that this bill protects Social Security, Medicare and veterans? If so, it should be shouted from the Hill as to who is going to withhold checks.

152 Nevergiveup - no way, if that bill looks "Bi-partisan" he will have to eat it. Thats his fault shopping all of these default scenarios to the press.

153
If this seems mad, it is.

Bizzarro Universe-esque.

154

If we pass this bullshit McConnell plan, we're going to see debt fears continue to build.  You can't send a clearer message to the rest of the world that the U.S. is not serious about debt reduction, and that treasuries will soon be worthless. 

 

155

O/T, but James O'Keefe is back to his old tricks.  This time, the target of his sting is Medicaid.  From Hotair:

 

The first video in the series shows government employees in Ohio assisting two men who have described themselves as Russian drug smugglers with applications for Medicaid.

In the video, the men explain to Ohio Medicaid workers that they are Russian immigrants who sell illegal drugs, drive a modified McLaren F1 sports car with a gold-coated engine, and use their underage sisters to perform sexual favors in exchange for drugs.

In response, Ohio employees tasked with disbursing federal Medicaid dollars are shown coaching the men through the process of applying for benefits. “If itÂ’s not something registered here, maybe I just wouldnÂ’t mention it,” a Franklin County Medicaid officer named Traci Daniels tells the men, when asked whether they should mention owning a vehicle that retails for nearly $1 million, as they apply for government aid designed to help poor people. “Not that I can say that. You didnÂ’t hear that from me. But, that would right there, that would throw him off. He would be immediately not qualified.”

156 We've already run out of blue ribbon, Mr. President!

157
Who knew that Moody's thinks spending 140% of revenue is AAA worthy??

158

The Lyin King cannot have you stupids out there in the States voting on a balanced budget amendment cause you don't pay attention and don't know what your talking about.

The extremist Tea Partiers are using this Balanced Budget Amendment to stiffle Dear Readers Recovery and we won't let that happen, so STFU and eat your Peas, 48% racists!

159 Devil's Advocate: McConnell may understand that you can't win with only the house. To really fix this will take veto-proof majorities or the presidency.

Can you argue that JEF isn't maneuvering the republicans into a position where he can blame them for any market madness / default? Which lets JEF move front-and-center as the "saviour" of the country from the ecomonic chaos created by the republicans.

Maybe McConnell is trying to maneuver JEF into owning it all to minimize JEF's reelection possibilities?

160 Ramping up public works spending is a twofer

I love this failure of basic math.

Let's say that the government spends (in bizarro world) 150K to create a 60K job (we're talking taxable income, here).  They then get roughly 20% of that 60K, so 12K.  So, for a measly $150,000.00 going out, they manage to make $12,000.00 coming in.  Now, yes, that person will go out and spend money, but he, alone, can't do enough to spur the economy.  We need (minimum) another 500,000 or so like him.  So now we're up to $75,000,000,000.00 to make around $6,000,000,000.00 + some (barely) measurable uptick in some other economic numbers.

On the other hand, they could have just left that money in the hands of the people, where it would have had at least as much effect, and not been pared down by the costs associated with a bloated and unresponsive bureaucracy.

Posted by: Jordan at July 18, 2011 01:30 PM (4z6KA)

Then, all respect due, you're an idiot.  Any BBA that does not cap congress's ability to take money out of my wallet to balance its budget is not worth the paper it's written on (soft double-ply for preference, IYKWIM).

The only thing a BBA without provisions limiting the ability to increase tax rates would do is ensure ever higher taxation until we were "constitutionally required" to become a soviet state with functional 100% taxation.

161 Were stuck with Mitch thru this cycle

162 The citizens are my children, and I am their father. I shall hold them to my bosom. Well, not the Jews or honkeys. Let's not get crazy with this.

163 Nevergiveup - no way, if that bill looks "Bi-partisan" he will have to eat it. Thats his fault shopping all of these default scenarios to the press. Posted by: Jean at July 18, 2011 01:36 PM (WkuV6) That's not what he just said

164 "We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty," Moody's analyst Steven Hess wrote in the report...

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters

So in other words, if you refuse to cut up the credit card of the largest spendthrift on the planet, you earn a higher credit rating from Moody's.

If this seems mad, it is.

Posted by: George Orwell

 

So Moody's is saying that we should embark upon the path of the PIIGS (no limit to debt, ever higher levels of taxation, flight of capital)....which Moody's is in the process of downgrading to junk. That would remove uncertainty.

But the bond traders would have a fucking sweet third quarter. And we we're beating on the mortgage originators earlier? This crew make the mortgage guys look like Joan of Arc.

165
the bond market doesn't like uncertainty?

what's more uncertain than writing checks that your ass can't cash?

166

If you shit in a box and securitize it, we will give it a Triple A rating. 

167 One year and four months.  The amount of damage this regime and the dem senate (including senators like McConnell) could and is trying to do is unimaginable.  They're ripping my beloved country to shreds.

168 OKeefe vs IBM -- who do you think could eliminate more Medicade waste and fraud?

169
Moody's is despicable.

(But not as despicable as Herman Cain)

170 Posted by: Another Bob at July 18, 2011 01:39 PM (fF6f5)

I don't believe 13 Dimensional Chess arguments.  They're not actually that smart.

El JEFfe may, indeed, be attempting to "maneuver" the Republicans, but public sentiment is still on the Republicans' side.  It'll only start to shift when Republicans start looking like they want to get out of Dodge.

171

By saying he will Veto "Cut, Cap, and Balance" he is giving those Dems in Red Districts the OK to vote for it.

Thus showing, once again, that he is the "smartest guy in the room" - too bad for him if both the House and the Senate pass it. Then what? He'll veto it?

Hey, Einstein - that means the ball's in your court about who gets paid and who doesn't. And if Granny doesn't get her Social Security check, you're gonna have to get out of the country fast.

'Cuz all of the people who've paid into the SS scheme all these years are people with jobs. You know - Republicans.....

172

The Indonesian always intended to run this car into the wall.  Part of that is his trying to scare the economy into a nose-dive (along with help from Buffet and his ratings joke agency), but he'll be happy to do it any way he can.  His first choice, of course, is to do it by having the insane spending just continue (as was planned in that joke budget he submitted ... and the joke mulligan he played after Ryan's plan) but he'll take harming the US any way he can.

It doesn't matter, though.  The GOP has to do what they are supposed to do (which they won't, because they're retarded cowards).

173
look up, dummies

174 I apologize for my languague, but fuck you to hell Mitch McConnell.
Posted by: Ben





If you think you're ticked off now, just wait until the Republican leadership rams this through the Congress at the last minute, in the dead of night, unread and un-analyzed -- again.

175

When is the last time you have thanked your fellow 52%er's? I hope they are happy! Knowing this country........it won't surprise me one bit that Obama gets re-elected!

 

176 Another credit rating warning

177 Nevergiveup - said vs do; if a bunch of Dim Senators jump ship and pass that bill (if Harry even lets it get to the floor), then the shit sandwich that he has been selling for a "default" goes back on the DIms who don't vote to override. I don't think he can take that risk, I bet he signs it - and then uses it to make the Pubs "own" the economy for the next 18 months

178 _{Can you argue that JEF isn't maneuvering the republicans into a position where he can blame them for any market madness / default?}


Fuck blame.
Time to save the country.

Fuck re-election.
Time to save the country.

Fuck who gets credit.
Time to save the country.

I won't stand for some slack-jawed, chinless maggot lawyer putting my kid on the street because he is worried about "maneuvering".

Neither will a lot of other folks.

179 The idea of passing a smaller increase to be revisited during the election is idiotic. The Repubs are already showing weakness. It will be even worse next year. What point will it make? That Obama spends money like a drunken sailor? Everybody knows that. That the economy is in a fragile condition due to Obama? Everybody knows that. That Obama will go to the mat to keep the goodies coming? Everybody knows that. The only advantage to such a ploy is if it could be designed in such a way as to politically seperate Obama from his supporters.

180

Cloward Piven people, Cloward Piven.  Along with some Alinski to demonize anyone who dares get in the way.  Throw in a few spineless old establishment fools who have an agenda to marginalize the Tea Party (ie "subjects") and you have a perfect recipe for destroying a country.

The hate is strong with me!

181 Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at July 18, 2011 01:46 PM (OWjjx)

In the Senate?  Who?  Rubio maybe, but only maybe.  DeMint has been pretty solid on the Senate side.

182 Posted by: Jean at July 18, 2011 01:45 PM (WkuV6) Ah it will never pass the Senate anyway, so it's just theoretical

183 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 18, 2011 01:42 PM (8y9MW) Except it doesn't require 13 dimensions to understand - it's pretty basic politics.

And that public sentiment will turn quickly once money markets start busting the buck and the pain for the public begins.

184 157 53  ...Do I read it correctly that this bill protects Social Security, Medicare and veterans? If so, it should be shouted from the Hill as to who is going to withhold checks.

The bill deals with the discretionary side, is my understanding. I have not completely read the two acts in question under "Limit on Total Spending".

185

His Truely WONderfulness shall NOT be stopped.

His self sacrafice and denial, of endless summer vacations with the girls, is an amazing example to all and the richest among you Tea Party wingnuts should gaze upon His WONderfullnesses example and fork over your money so HE who is Lyin King can spread the wealth to Unions and Pants around their anles, quart drinkin, professional babymakers who always vote for him who is most magnificant.

186 Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at July 18, 2011 01:46 PM (4aBh/)

No, it's actually working pretty well with the "Independents."  However squishy the middle may be, they all see the red ink and know that it's not good.  Every time we can make them take a solid look at the red ink, it's a net win for us.

Now, I'd prefer Cut, Cap, and Balance and to get rid of the issue once and for all (I think that's the best win for us) but this is a solid plan B.  Plan C is the prioritization bill wherein we just require that Debts and Entitlements get paid first, and everything else gets cut first.

Plan "OMG Are you crazy?" is McConnell's plan- to be tried if and only if all other plans have been tried and have failed.

187 Thank God! I was just this morning thinking that a Congressional panel is the solution to all the problems facing us today. Glad to know the president is thinking outside the box now.

188 "Cut, Cap, and Balance" does not cost the economy 700,000 jobs

189 Posted by: sifty at July 18, 2011 01:46 PM (ECjvn)

I'm picking up what you're puttin' down.

But this *is* politics, thinking that the JEF and the dems will simply change their stripes is wishful thinking.

190
Daffy Duck says,

"You're Desssthpicable!"

191
shit

192 Well, AllenG, that puts you in the tiny minority, because about 95% of Republicans in the House have supported the Republican Study Group's previous BBAs, which do not contain those restrictions. I realize this vote is purely symbolic, so they don't need to craft a plan that can *actually* balance the budget, but I'd like to see a BBA passed and ratified, and this one won't be.

193

Cloward-Piven demands that the states have to go bankrupt first...Check!

Cloward-Piven demands that the Federal Government must rack up enough debt so that revenues are chewed up by interest payments....Check!

Cloward-Piven demands that the majority of the population be put in a situation where they must rely on the Federal Government to survive....Check!

Cloward-Piven demands that as default takes place, a plan and new governmental infrastructure must already be in place to smoothly transition away from the Capitalist System....Check!   

194 Miserable failure.

195 I just read that cut crap and balance amendment. It has too many holes and exemptions and the percentage of gdp limits are "too damned high". Since tax collections always wind up at 18% of gdp spending should be limited to that.

It also puts of almost ALL of the spending cuts to "down the road". We need those cuts NOW.

196 Win Borrow the Future

197 any BBA that does not remove the fundamental underpinning of the tax and spend state - withholding is meaningless.

198 Who's up for some more Panel-ready jobs!

199 Let me guess:  Jeffrey Imelt, Warren Buffet, and three hand-picked professors from Harvard.

Huzzah.

200 207 I just read that cut crap and balance amendment. It has too many holes and exemptions and the percentage of gdp limits are "too damned high". Since tax collections always wind up at 18% of gdp spending should be limited to that.

It also puts of almost ALL of the spending cuts to "down the road". We need those cuts NOW.

Direct spending is mandatory spending. I believe that at least 2 of those 4 would be exempted anyway under pre-existing law, but I have to check. But what's listed in Sections 318 and 319 separate the exemptions under Section 317. As for their GDP limits, I would also prefer they return to 18% GDP right away but their numbers are much lower than what we're spending now.

201 #204
Cloward Piven also forgets that people aren't going to just voluntarily share the fruits of their labor with the layabouts. Following a collapse of society, every hardworking farmer would allow every good for nothing layabout to fucking starve to death in the streets rather than support the establishment of a new confiscatory regime. See Rhodesia in fast forward for details. All the happy "got mine" leeches would be dead within two months of their greedy push to collapse civilization.

202 Towards An Effective Spending Cap

203 Unless and until we institute a hard cap on spending at 18% of GDP, we're not going to get anywhere.  It may take 5 or even 10 years to get back down to that without throwing Grandma in the streets, but it has to be done somehow.  We have 70 years of history now that shows we can never collect more than 18% in taxes.

204 Hey '80sbaby, just want to say "thank you" for all of the information you share here. It is very much appreciated.

205 Okay, wait-- I keep reading that it caps spending at 18% of GDP but this portion confuses me:

a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to-- `(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by `(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.

206 I'm going to try this again:

(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--

> (1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by

> (2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.

207 216 Hey '80sbaby, just want to say "thank you" for all of the information you share here. It is very much appreciated.

You're welcome.

208 Direct spending is mandatory spending.

Not all "madatory spending" is entitlements though. All that is required is to move a lot of that crap back into the "discretionary" column.

They are playing smoke and mirrors again.

209 220 Not all "madatory spending" is entitlements though. All that is required is to move a lot of that crap back into the "discretionary" column.

They are playing smoke and mirrors again.

What Chaffetz is saying is that he's excluding Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, and interest on the debt from going under the cap. That means everything else that's not listed is under it.

210 A big part of the problem with this debate is this:  Most people just aren't very good at math.  In my experience, 3/4s of people can't do arithmetic.. especially division in their heads.  They don't understand math at ALL. 

Its like its a bizarre foreign language to them.  Thatss why the national debt discussion is so maddening.  A very large part of the populace probably thinks if they raise taxes, we could pay everything off.  In truth it won't even pay a fraction of a months debt.

The words billion and trillion mean nothing to them.

Not sure how to deal with this.  If the country go's balls up, somehow the idiots that support the President will blame this all on the Republicans, and the media (if they're still broadcasting) will go along with it. 

The country is in deep shit

211

213   Plus, Cloward-Piven doesn't account for the fact that most American property owners have guns - and lots of them. 

 

212 Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

> (1) Social Security, function 650.

> (2) Medicare, function 570.

> (3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

> (4) Net Interest, function 900.

(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending- The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.'.

213 So it's saying those things are exempted for FY 2012 specifically.

214 Posted by: Jordan at July 18, 2011 01:58 PM (4z6KA)

Yes, because those were the best they thought they could get.

Let's take a look at this logically, though:

Let's say we have a BBA that enforces no revenue cap.  We can take in as much money (theoretically) as we want.  Now, let's say Democrats are in charge (it'll happen again, eventually).  And let's say their spending plan would be 22% of GDP- with enough smoke and mirrors to make it still "look" like it's 18% of GDP (Since the version of the bill I read says that's the upper spending limit as well as the upper taxation limit).

Now, when the bill comes do, what do you think will happen.

Will they:
A) Say, "Whoops, our bad!" and cut some spending to get expenditures back down to equaling revenues or
B) Say, "Ah, shucks, guess we need higher taxes." and raise your tax rate?

Let's even go with a more innocent example: When the budget is written, it assumes GDP will be X and the budget is then planned to be 0.18X.  Actual GDP however, is .9X, so revenues will be less than expected when the budget is written.  Of the above two options, which do you think politicians of any stripe will choose?  Cutting spending, or raising taxes?

Capping the taxation rate to an effective 18% of GDP- modified only if voted on by 2/3 of the House and Senate- means that they would, in most circumstances, have to cut spending instead.

215

@222

"If the country go's balls up, somehow the idiots that support the President will blame this all on the Republicans, and the media (if they're still broadcasting) will go along with it."

It is an active plan they have been developing for quite sometime. They have always intended on blaming Republicans for the entire thing. Go to some of the radical blogs and economic sites and it is often spelled out for you. The Democratic Party was taken over quite sometime ago by very radical Marxist elements with the agena always being to transiform the Capitalist System into a Centralized Democratic Socialism and redistribute Americas' wealth. 

 

 

216

@213

"Plus, Cloward-Piven doesn't account for the fact that most American property owners have guns - and lots of them."

It doesn't matter...they never intended to control guns....that is just a sideshow. They intend to control ammunition, where bullets will fall under the Terrorism Laws and be declared explosive devices. Soon you will not be able to buy powder or manufactured bullets, all the while they will keep you believing that they are coming for the gun itself.

 

217 Posted by: Billy Rubin at July 18, 2011 02:46 PM (VK1Kj)

Can you conceive of a billion anything?  Anything real, mind you, not abstract like "dollars."  Imagine a billion pebbles.

Your mind shrinks back, doesn't it?  You just get a mental picture of a big mountain of pebbles, or maybe a huge beach made up of them, or the worlds largest dump-truck, or whatever.

No one really comprehends those terms.  The closest we get is when someone points out that "A billion seconds ago..." whatever was happening.

And that's the trap Republicans fell into.  Who was it who said, "A Million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money?"  The point of that statement is that the larger the numbers get, the less people pay attention to them- because they can't comprehend them.

Now, we have to win that back, little by little.  The cat is out of the bag, I doubt we'll ever get another budget under 1T dollars.  But maybe, just maybe, we can be responsible in other ways to grow the economy enough to be able to sustain it.  If we do that -and learn the lessons about spending and big dollar amounts- we might avert the crisis, or at least come out of it whole.

If we don't, all the Morons will be welcome to the Texan Republic when it forms from the ashes.

218 Just a simple line. Congress shall not authorize outlays from the Treasury that exceed receipts.

219 Dummies are playing Obama's game - we get specific, he stays general and says no.

Apparently the Obama team has come up with their reelection slogan:  "Obama:  Because now, more than ever, America sucks at math."

220 $1.5 Trillion in (fake) cuts is bullshit.   pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Even if it's not, it's one years deficit cut, spread over 10 years.

Big whoop.

221 Considering that a "shared sacrifice" requires spending cuts and new taxes on the "rich," can it now be concluded that the "rich" get no benefit from government spending ?

222 Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at July 18, 2011 03:02 PM (4aBh/)

Pipedream for two reasons:

One, they budget on expected numbers (for obvious reasons). 
Two (extension of One) since they budget on expected numbers, there would be nothing to stop them from raising the top marginal rate to 50% and saying, "O, look, we have 3.5T to play with!"

Posted by: toby928™ at July 18, 2011 03:09 PM (GTbGH)

Exactly.  I want specific cuts- and I want them to be real cuts, not "cut in the rate of growth."  The more front-loaded I can get that, the better.

223

The strong, principled leadership demonstrated by McConnel, McCain, Collins, etc is a necessary factor in the success of a future Romney?Perry administration that will devote itself to the same conservative ideas that contrast so sharply with Obama's tax and spend formula.

Can I hear it for the hopey changy thing from the RINOs, moderates and independents out there.

I just can't make up my mind on tax hikes, expanding government erroding our liberties, government restricting Chrisitianity but not Islam, abortion and the like.  So much changes each year.

 

Must run its time for my favorite independent focused reality show, "As the Debt Rate Turns."

 

 

224 Senator McConnell's looking pretty Presidential to me...

225 There is a solution to this problem.  Too bad Baynor the Orange isn't up to the task.  But can anyone tell me why this scheme wouldn't work?

Pass a debt limit increase with spending cuts, or go all in on cut cap and limit.  Then demand five minutes of prime time tv time.  Say this in a slightly nicer way.

Listen up crackheads, because the schools stopped teaching civics a generation or so ago, apparently even Constitutional Scholars don't know this stuff anymore so let me put ya some knowledge on.

The POTUS (aka the Constitutional Scholar) gets to fly around in a fancy jet and do all the Presidentin'.  The Senate gets to Advice and Consent, sign Treaties and all that fancy stuff.  But all taxing and spending authority is here in my House.  Fo shizzle.  We got the checkbook.

Now we got this serious problem with the debt limit coming up.  Its real and it's scary.  But you idiots yammering on the tube got this thing all wrong.  It don't get solved with summits.  It don't get solved with speeches and powerpoint shows.  It gets solved when a Bill gets signed.  And that starts with us writing the Bill and passing it.  We have done our bit so we are gettin' outta town for a few days.  What happens now is that bill goes to the Senate and they debate and amend it.  They can't just write their own, they gotta start with ours because the whole money thing is our wheelhouse, remember?

If they amend it we gotta pass it again so 'yall be quick about all the debating and stuff because we are about outta time, Yo!

Finally Mr. Constitutional Scholar has to sign it.  And he better sign it 'cuz if granny don't get her Social Security check there ain't gonna be no money for Secret Service protection for his sorry ass either.

And as for this bull crap about the 14th Amendment giving Mr. Constitutional Scholar permission to keep floating notes?  Eh?  It sez he can and must honor all existing debts but nothing in that says he can issue new debt, only we can do that.  So straight up, anybody thinking about taking paper signed by Obama alone know this: this body shall not consider any such paper a binding obligation of the United States, such paper shall be considered backed by the full faith and credit of President Obama's personal finances alone.

Ok, I'm done.  Back to your regularly scheduled programming.  Peace, Out!

226 Just means Congress will have to include contingency plans as part of the spending legislation. Or have the BBA authorize the President to order prorated outlays from Treasury.

227

I pray that every time Ojackass shows himself to the be stubborn, rigid ideologist who doesn't give a flip about anything but his own re-election, that more and more voters wake up.  Really, the worse he is, the better chance we have to eject his ass in 2012.  He sureley isn't gaining anyone to his side, the true believers are already with him.

So, awful as it is, we need the dipshit to keep going on TV, keep digging in, keep getting pissy and blaming everyone else, and so on.

There is no way to work with him, only around him.  At this point I think our side (everyone against Zero) needs to push his buttons at every opportunity.  His vanity is his weakness and this can be expoited and manipulated.

I'm astonished I just wrote that about a U.S. President.  I've never, ever, ever felt the need to undermine the president, but it's necessary for the survival of the country.

228 Spengler (A realist, who I respect greatly and has an excellent pro-America, Pro-Israel, Pro-Free Market, Pro-Liberty track record)  game theories the situation and concludes McConnell idea is the least worst option....

http://tinyurl.com/4xwamqb

Talk about some dark clouds!

229 Call his bluff.

230 Where is the doom and gloom?  The Repubs can't win this argument if they can't convince the public that continued borrowing will bring about a crisis that the Dems refuse to confront.

How in the world can Repubs be so lame that they can't explain what happens when the dollar is dropped as the reserve currency and interest rates on the debt go up to 9%?

Pretty fukn lame, I guess.

231
Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

232

#244

 

And why should Americans be concerned at all?

 

No one can replace the US currency.

 

If interest rates hit 9% we will face hyper inflation as the government will put its printing presses on steroids.  At this point a review of the economics of Weimar, the French Revolution, Argentina and Zimbabwe will be required reading.

 

The comes the man on a white horse.

 

Prepare for what is coming.