Per Politico on twitter, Boehner has pulled out of large scale deficit reduction plan

[sailingaway]

politico POLITICO
by GABullDog067
John Boehner has released a statement saying he is pulling out of talks for a large-scale deficit reduction plan.

:)

[eduardo89]

Saw this on yahoo news, apparently he's only going to seek $2 trillion in "cuts" over 10 years. What a pathetic joke the GOP is....

[LibertyEagle]

Saw this on yahoo news, apparently he's only going to seek $2 trillion in "cuts" over 10 years. What a pathetic joke the GOP is....

Boehner is one of the big government Republicans that need to be ousted. Many, many more small government Constitutional Conservatives need to be running for office.

[eduardo89]

Boehner is one of the big government Republicans that need to be ousted. Many, many more small government Constitutional Conservatives need to be running for office.

Boehner and Cantor and McConnel and McCain and about 200 others.

[tsai3904]

Saw this on yahoo news, apparently he's only going to seek $2 trillion in "cuts" over 10 years. What a pathetic joke the GOP is....

I know it doesn't make much of a difference, but when they are talking about cuts, whose 10 year budget are they referring to, Obama's, Ryan's, or a previous budget?

[eduardo89]

I know it doesn't make much of a difference, but when they are talking about cuts, whose 10 year budget are they referring to, Obama's, Ryan's, or a previous budget?

No idea. That's one of the things that makes this an even bigger farce. They simply talk about "cutting trillions" but there won't be any actual cuts, it's just proposed decreases in proposed future spending.

[LibertyEagle]

Boehner and Cantor and McConnel and McCain and about 200 others.

hehe. yup. :)

[sailingaway]

Saw this on yahoo news, apparently he's only going to seek $2 trillion in "cuts" over 10 years. What a pathetic joke the GOP is....

Well, dang. And here I thought it meant he wasn't going to raise the debt ceiling.....:o

[tsai3904]

No idea. That's one of the things that makes this an even bigger farce. They simply talk about "cutting trillions" but there won't be any actual cuts, it's just proposed decreases in proposed future spending.

I think I found the answer. Cuts are measured against CBO's most recent baseline budget projections, which came out in January 2011. CBO's latest budget shows that the government will spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2-trillion-in-cuts-in-perspective/

[eduardo89]

Well, dang. And here I thought it meant he wasn't going to raise the debt ceiling.....:o

You really thought Boehner or Cantor would vote against raising the debt ceiling?

[TCE]

I think I found the answer. Cuts are measured against CBO's most recent baseline budget projections, which came out in January 2011. CBO's latest budget shows that the government will spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2-trillion-in-cuts-in-perspective/

That is how I understand it as well. As usual, it is not a cut in government, but rather a cut over what they were project to spend anyway, which was increasing every year to begin with. From the looks of it, the deal is yet another cut in the increases, not an actual cut.

Our only hope is really the following:

1. We have to hope the Republicans and Democrats, debating stupid and pointless parts of the deal, wait until the very last minute to strike something.

2. THE HOUSE: Ron can hopefully gather the three or four Congressman he is close with and get them to oppose it. Hopefully the liberals will be against it because it makes imaginary "cuts" and they can never be for any cut, real or imagined, in government spending. Worst case scenario, hopefully they can stall it out for as long as possible.

3. THE SENATE: Here is where our hope actually lies. Rand, potentially aided by Mike Lee, would need to filibuster it and force the 60 votes needed to get it through which is much less likely than the 51 they would normally need. Again, if nothing else, stall it out and people will realize the August 2nd deadline is meaningless and the end of the world isn't coming.


The most likely scenario: They agree to a deal that changes nothing and the world goes on as usual.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd run against Issa, but that'd be a pretty futile endeavor.

[sailingaway]

You really thought Boehner or Cantor would vote against raising the debt ceiling?

I thought he'd been cowed by the outrage over his plan to do so. Apparently, he was cowed by the wrong thing.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Run TV ads in his district - it would probably be pretty cheap. Things like: say hou have $70 of income a year, but you borrow and spend $100 a year currently. You plan to increase this borrowing and spending every year. In 10 years you will be spending $200 a year, but still only earning $70. You realize you have a spending problem, so propose to spend $20 less over the next 10 years. That is Boeners plan - smoke and mirrors - accounting misdirection.

-t

that could be pared down to a tweet too!

[SamuraisWisdom]

LOL I love how they consider a "large scale cut" to be 5% of the total budget over 10 years...

[eduardo89]

LOL I love how they consider a "large scale cut" to be 5% of the total budget over 10 years...

What are you talking about? These cuts are draconian!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

LOL I love how they consider a "large scale cut" to be 5% of the total budget over 10 years...


They're all very rich, and they all think taxes are a revenue stream that can't end. They see no problems on the horizon.

[Koz]

I love how they call taxes revenue now.

I live in Boehner's district, it will be really hard to get him out. People around here adore him. They are so f'ing stupid. When I tell them he voted for the bailouts they look at me like I have three heads.

It could be done, but it would take a small army and a lot of money.

At least he won't be speaker next term, because the Democratic Socialists will take the house again. So we'll have Pelosi.

[LibertyEagle]

At least he won't be speaker next term, because the Democratic Socialists will take the house again. So we'll have Pelosi.

You think so? I don't.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You think so? I don't.

Like Ron Paul felt in 2006, I feel that an election where the establishment Republicans lose their power and rank would be a great thing.

[stuntman stoll]

LOL I love how they consider a "large scale cut" to be 5% of the total budget over 10 years...

No, it's far more absurd than that. Having the budget go from 3.82 trillion this year down to 3.62 trillion for the next 10 years would be a 5% cut or a 2 trillion cut over 10 years.
That is nothing like what they are talking about.
To jog your memory, THIS is what they call a SIX trillion dollar cut
http://www.crescenttide.com/paulryandebt.jpg

[Teaser Rate]

The way I see it, this is a giant political game of chicken with the stability of the world economy. Everyone knows the debt ceiling will be passed, what remains to be seen is who claims political victory for it.

My guess is that Obama probably has the upper hand as the public and media is more likely to blame the Republicans in the event of a default.

Btw, $2 trillion in cuts is not "nothing", it's a start. As much as most around here don't like the admit it, it's just not possible to fix the deficit problem over night, it took years to create it and it will take years to solve it. It's time to stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good and take victories where we can find them.

[angelatc]

I heard that this wasn't even true - this is the White House trying to scramble for cover. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-rose-garden-collapse/2011/03/29/gIQAcTZj5H_blog.html


The White House dished out the spin that suddenly the Tea Party crowd had nixed a deal. In reality, the White House had upped the ante on taxes. A Republican House aide told me that the White House “started to backpedal on entitlement reforms too.” He explained, “They [the White House] had started to go back on some of the Medicare and Medicaid reforms they had previously said they were ok with.” In other words, either the White House never intended to present a viable grand bargain, or, if Obama did, the left got to him.

If the Republicans' position (no tax hikes but significant spending cuts) holds, they will have avoided following Obama down the rabbit hole of class warfare and Keynesian obsession. The alternative would chase off their base and leave them with no message to attract voters fed up with the president’s mismanagement of the economy. The contrast they appear to be drawing with the president could not be more stark.

Friday’s Rose Garden remarks by President Obama were as damning as the unemployment numbers. An eagle-eyed Capitol Hill Republican points to a telling contrast that highlights the intellectual cul-de-sac in which Obama now finds himself.

On Friday he proclaimed: “And over the past few months, the economy has experienced some tough headwinds — from natural disasters, to spikes in gas prices, to state and local budget cuts that have cost tens of thousands of cops and firefighters and teachers their jobs.”

In the Rose Garden last summer he proclaimed: “And that’s why today we’re trying to pass a law that will save hundreds of thousands of additional jobs in the coming year. It will help states avoid laying off police officers, firefighters, nurses and first responders. And it will save the jobs of teachers like the ones who are standing with me today.”

In other words, Obama’s policies have flopped, and the flops now are supposed to justify more of the same.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Btw, $2 trillion in cuts is not "nothing", it's a start. As much as most around here don't like the admit it, it's just not possible to fix the deficit problem over night, it took years to create it and it will take years to solve it. It's time to stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good and take victories where we can find them.


We can victory ourselves right to the same place, only slightly slower. And that's if it ever materialized.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Boehner is one of the big government Republicans that need to be ousted. Many, many more small government Constitutional Conservatives need to be running for office.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh2SY7l09bI

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Boehner and Cantor and McConnel and McCain and about 200 others.

McCain was speaking out against a balanced budget amendment

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

I heard Cantor made him pull out of it. Shows just how strong Republican leadership is.

[AuH20]

By next cycle, given the current trend, there will be enough loyal House Republicans to permanently take the government's future budget hostage. Right now, there aren't enough to make Obama bleed in that Boehner and the rest of the RINO leadership have to appeal to house democrats to scrounge up enough votes to pass even a smaller deal.

[low preference guy]

The way I see it, this is a giant political game of chicken with the stability of the world economy. Everyone knows the debt ceiling will be passed, what remains to be seen is who claims political victory for it.

My guess is that Obama probably has the upper hand as the public and media is more likely to blame the Republicans in the event of a default.

Btw, $2 trillion in cuts is not "nothing", it's a start. As much as most around here don't like the admit it, it's just not possible to fix the deficit problem over night, it took years to create it and it will take years to solve it. It's time to stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good and take victories where we can find them.

Yes, it's a game for the health of the world economy, but the best thing that could happen to the world economy is a default by the United States.

The U.S. is going to default either formally or through inflation. There is no way around it. I argue that it is better to formally default, because then the government will not be able to borrow money for decades. When the government is able to borrow money, it uses resources that would have otherwise been used by individuals in the private sector. Capital is much more productive when its use is decided by the market than when it is decided by career politicians handing out freebies to get re-elected.

So it is obvious that a default will be a great event for liberty with positive repercussions for decades to come. Tinkering around the edges will do nothing to change the status quo, and postponing a crisis will only make it exponentially worse.

[tsai3904]

By next cycle, given the current trend, there will be enough loyal House Republicans to permanently take the government's future budget hostage.

I don't see that happening. The latest agriculture appropriations bill will spend more money next year than this year and Republicans voted 217-19 in favor. They're not serious about cutting and the voters are confused because they hear that Republicans cut billions but those are cuts to Obama's proposed spending increases.

[Teaser Rate]

Yes, it's a game for the health of the world economy, but the best thing that could happen to the world economy is a default by the United States.

The U.S. is going to default either formally or through inflation. There is no way around it. I argue that it is better to formally default, because then the government will not be able to borrow money for decades. When the government is able to borrow money, it uses resources that would have otherwise been used by individuals in the private sector. Capital is much more productive when its use is decided by the market than when it is decided by career politicians handing out freebies to get re-elected.

So it is obvious that a default will be a great event for liberty with positive repercussions for decades to come. Tinkering around the edges will do nothing to change the status quo, and postponing a crisis will only make it exponentially worse.

This Schiffian fantasy is not grounded in reality. We could easily solve the debt problem if there was sufficient political will.

[TheViper]

This Schiffian fantasy is not grounded in reality. We could easily solve the debt problem if there was sufficient political will.
You talk about being grounded in reality and then suggest the government will have the proper will?