Posted on 07/26/2011 11:23:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 07/26/2011 5:05:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The leader of a large group of House conservatives said Tuesday he was "confident" there weren't enough GOP lawmakers to pass a plan by Republican House Speaker John Boehner to increase the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), who said the Boehner plan didn't cut spending enough, heads a group that includes 178 of the 240 Republican House lawmakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This makes no sense. Yes, the $14.3T debt is owed for stuff we've already bought. But the point of raising the debt ceiling is to borrow more money. You can't pay off debt with borrowed money. Right now the interest payments on the existing debt comes to about 10% of current tax receipts. We could slash spending, pay the interest, start to pay down the debt, and eke by on what little remains. It would be a shock but we could do it. On the other hand, to say we'll go to the liquor store one last time, buy some booze for one last blowout, and then quit drinking tomorrow sounds like denial and excuse-making.
“How about cutting ONE trillion by the end of the year?”
Establishment Republicans like Boehner really don’t want to cut. You no doubt remember the spending spree in the early Bush years with both a Republican House and Senate. Boehner, and other establishment types, only cut when absolutely forced to, and then try to minimize the cuts. Making some minor cuts now and then is a branding tool to distinguish them from the Dims, nothing more.
“Here’s one that would scare the the Donkeys and RINOs: the House passes a spending bill for the U.S. government at 2006 levels and no taxes or fee increases. If Harry Reid doesn’t like it, send him one for 2005 levels without taxes. Every time Reid balks, cut the budget spending levels back a year.”
Excellent idea. Or the proposal Rand Paul discussed on Hannity’s show this after noon and pushed by Connie Mack:
Cut all spending by 1% a year for six straight years, each time reducing the baseline. In six years, according to Mack (don’t know if it’s been scored), you would be working with a balanced budget. The Congress could decide where the cuts would be made. If they fail to decide, it’s a 1% cut across the board. These would be real cuts, not reductions in growth like Boehner is talking about where the deficit continues to spiral out of control because of a 7% rise in the baseline year after year.
Exton1, Pan_Yan’s words were, as you now know, examples of words as though a Democrat were to twist what had happened. You apparently didn't notice the quotes; instead, accusing Pan_Yan of being a troll.
Cardinal4 also tries to explain/defend Pan_Yan’s “words” to Exton1, stating “Pan Yan was saying what the Vhris Matthewses and Wassermans will say ..” At this, napscoordinator dug into Cardinal4, somehow thinking Cardinal4 didn't understand Pan_Yan’s words, when, in fact, Cardinal4 was simply explaining to Exton1 why Pan_Yan said what he did the way he did. Napscoordinator then insults Cardinal4 numerous times when Cardinal4 simply wanted an explanation.
Napscoordinator, you desperately need to apologize to Cardinal4. You are GROSSLY wrong in your apparent misunderstanding.
However, you almost made me snort peach iced tea out of my nose in a very public setting.
I don’t count the US’s SS trust fund. The number you quote includes debt the Japanese government holds.
Japanese “Government bonds held by the private sector amount to 52 per cent of GDP.”
Moreover, the Japanese have a very high savings rate making bond holders more comfortable with Japan’s government debt. In the US, given our debt supported consumers, when government spending on interest payments start to crowd out private borrowing, our economy will grind to a halt much quicker as consumers will have to at least increase their minimum credit card payments.
I always like it when people use Japan as the counter example to the 90/120 rule. It helps make the point that 90% / 120% rule where the economy slows / stops is a very good rule.
Figure 10, This time it’s different: http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf (Warming! It’s a 124 page pdf!)
Yes, it was all very funny. Napswhatever reminded me of this character in a Hardy Boys book; a slightly unbalanced, but harmless chap claiming kinship with King Arthur..
Here’s my cheat sheet: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf
Apologies to all especially the good Cardinal.
Apology accepted!
And worse. 90% of that is coming from the FED, i.e. simply printed paper. Yep, only 10% of the deficit is actually being borrowed. The rest is pure funny money.
The situation is much, much worse than most anyone in DC believes. IMO, they are nearly all showing symptoms of mental illness to think that this can be continued without monumental consequences.
As regards the “debt limit”, the irony is that most of this money isn’t really being borrowed. It is simply being printed. Only a few hundred billion is actually Treasuries being sold to entities other than the FED.
Besides the massive “purchasing” by the FED that is publicly admitted, the FED is buying substantial amounts through proxies in an attempt to hide the fact that no one is buying our debt. The joke is that Moodys and darn near everyone else knows this. The credit rating is an incredible farce that is fooling no one but the American people.
A very quick way to lower the deficit by a huge amount would simply be to bar the FED from buying any Treasuries in any fashion. The deficit would drop to $300 billion overnight.
No more omnibus bills. Just kill the beast with a thousand small cuts.
This is all nothing short of economic incestuous underage inbreeding. We are eating our own with these socialist policies that refuse to discuss even in civil courts of opinion the case of the tax payer, and, yet, refuse to question Obama’s great obvious crimes.
The GOP is guilty of looking the other way while a rape is under way.
So you endorse Boehner’s telling us his $1B in actual cuts is $1T in cuts? That’s more principled and professional to you?
They had a “mandate” to cut spending! The way I look at it, ONE guy the Weeper,Keeps bottling things up for his Golf buddy.
He has to go NOW,How in the hell? did someone who admires Ted the Woman killing Drunk,Friggin Kennedy get a place on our team,in leadership NO Less
Americans Hate a loser and wimp, Patton was VERY right!
If we don’t start cutting now then all of these promises of cuts later ring utterly hollow.
Absolutely correct!
I called Paul Ryan's Wash DC office today and basically said the same thing....
1) Do NOT raise the debt limit one single penny!
2) CUT a minimum of One Trillion Dollars from the 2012 budget....not 2 years from now, not 5 years from and especially not 10 years from now.... CUT IT NOW in 2011 and 2012.
Rotten beltway Rino Repubs and corrupt bastard demoRATs. May God help us to throw these bastards out of office (especially including 0dumb0) and into either prison for treason or the gallows!
FREEZE IT FIRST
Freeze the Ceiling first then battle out how to spend the money.
Rand Paul is the only one who wants to really cut.
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.