Posted on 07/29/2011 9:04:13 PM PDT by Steelfish
ANDREW C. McCARTHY
JULY 29, 2011 Against the Boehner Plan
Nothing can justify adding $2.5 trillion to the government’s credit card.
House Speaker John Boehner has a plan that he touts as slashing about $900 billion in government spending — shy of his original claim, only two days earlier, that cuts would amount to $1.2 trillion. It’s nonsense, of course. In Washington, unlike the rest of the known universe, a “cut” is a reduction in the rate of increase. There are never real cuts. In reality,
Speaker Boehner’s plan would add $9.1 trillion to the national debt. It is a “cut” only in the sense that the Obama Democrats have rigged matters so that, if nothing changes, autopilot would add $10 trillion.
You could call this a cruel joke on a country that is already well over $14 trillion in debt — a country in which every newly born child opens his eyes as a debtor, well over $30,000 in the hole. But that would be premature, because I haven’t gotten to the punchline yet.
The reason Speaker Boehner and the Republican establishment have suddenly stirred themselves to “cut” spending is their determination to keep the Ponzi scheme going. The “cuts” — less than $100 billion of which are real (the rest are consigned to the illusory “out years,” meaning they’re the responsibility of some future Congress) — are to be made in exchange for giving the government the authority to borrow another $2.5 trillion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Excellent
>>>You could call this a cruel joke on a country that is already well over $14 trillion in debt
Puts it into perspective. I’m beginning to think default would be better than either Boenher’s plan or, for certain, the excrement that is sure to come out of the Senate.
Let the whole thing come crashing down now, for all I care.
Boehner is a coward. Any resemblance between he and a real leader is purely consequential.
Wow, that piece really nails the conservative argument against the Boehner legislation.
Wooh there Buck-o. Your publication endorsed the Boner plan heartily. Now this after the play commentary, McCarthy. Have the honor to resign over this or just clam up.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/07/27/wsj,_national_review_endorse_boehners_plan
Frty Boner.
THERE IS NO MORE MONEY.
Cheaper to rebuild the US than bail it out.
Why does the writer of an op-ed have to resign because the editors of a magazine supported what he’s against? There are countless cases of a publication being in support/against something publishing opposing views.
That is the best commentary I have read about this whole fiasco. Thanks.
Why can’t I ask for that? I am fairly right wing. I find this whole Kabuki dance a disgrace. If he means what he says, which I believe is true, then resignation is the only thing to do. Resign and move on.
Puts it into perspective. I’m beginning to think default would be better than either Boenher’s plan or, for certain, the excrement that is sure to come out of the Senate.
///
absolutely. and that is what Rush, Mark Levin, and Jim Robinson have been saying for days.
while others defended Boehner for telling conservatives to “get their asses in line”, and Laura Ingram and Alan West ridiculed the tea party and called them “schizophrenic”.
what is insane, is after Obama runs up MORE debt in 2 years, than Clinton or Bush did in 8,
is to up the ceiling by 2.4 so he can KEEP SPENDING.
“Nothing can justify adding $2.5 trillion to the government’s credit card.
...
Speaker Boehner’s plan would add $9.1 trillion to the national debt. It is a “cut” only in the sense that the Obama Democrats have rigged matters so that, if nothing changes, autopilot would add $10 trillion. “
That’s how I felt too.
You know, I am beginning to wonder what Obama and Boehner talked about during their golf outing a couple weeks ago. Wow.
Boehner has just given the Senate the vehicle to up the debt ceiling and kick the economic can down the road by handing Reid a bill that he can tweak, send back to House and then get signed by dear leader who will be praised by the media for his great leadership in this all important issue...
House will compromise of, course, because they dont want to look obstructionist...
Thanks John. Cry me a river...
but default isn’t necessary, as Mark Levin pointed out last week, and Rush did this week.
2006 wasn’t that long ago.
and current revenues, would BALANCE with that budget.
simply cut back to that, and we have a balanced budget.
lots of American’s have lost 100% of their income. (unemployed)
asking everyone to take a cut simply back to 2006,
is hardly asking too much, to save our country and our children’s future.
Here’s three simple questions:
1. How much are we spending now?
2. How much will we be spending 10 years from now?
3. How can you stand there and bold-facedly lie that your plan cuts spending?
Everybody is proposing “cuts” and “savings” from programs that don’t exist; nor are we spending any money; nor will ever happen. In other words, it is business as usual and we will have another debt limit “crisis” in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017,.....
While the premise sounds simple, the maze is convolute. Let's pray they come up with a solution that actually brings the spending orgy to a halt.
trebb: “With current law as it is, demanding a 7-8% increase in spending each year, how does one go about actually cutting the debt without first changing the law.”
Change that “current law” to require 7-8% decrease in spending each year, and to eliminate the on-line accounting feature (that increases the federal spending by 7-8% every year).
But, the House, under Boehner, obviously doesn’t have the courage to do anything that reasonable and simple.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.