Posted on 07/23/2011 5:12:06 PM PDT by JimWayne
Can someone please explain what authority Boehner has to determine the budgets of future governments? Has he been granted a TEN YEAR term to the House of Representatives? He keeps talking of cutting spending in ten years time. Clearly, he was not voted for a ten year period. He needs to prepare the budget for his term, not for all eternity.
So true. If you think anything meaningful is going to come out of this Congress prepare for disappointment. We are on our way to credit downgrade no matter what transpires.
Bonehead is a butt head. This ten year plan only cuts 370 billion a year which will never happen. Workarounds will nultify it and the debt will just go on. Not to mention the rest of the stupid plan in the works. The balance budget will never be law because it will never get the States to pass and will be years down the road just to find out it failed. These Washington nitwits are totally worthless.
House members, including the speaker, are elected every two years, senators have 6 year terms.
I think you are correct. As I recall, fiscal years begin in October so the current Congress would/could set the budget and allocate funding for FY13. That would begin in October 2012, a few months before the new Congress, elected in November 2012, is seated.
It needs to be cut more than $15 trillion over the next ten years.
WOOOHOOOO! HOORAY Jim Wayne! (nice take)
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign AND domestic. NOW!
OUTSTANDING thread!
Promising to cut expenditures in the future is nothing more than junkie talk. Heritage Foundation economist JD Foster explains that a promise to cut spending is nothing more than a promise:
“When discretionary spending totals are cut immediately, that’s a spending cut. Such cuts are demonstrably not “pie in the sky,” so it’s fine to tally the effects over the next ten years.
“Similarly, when entitlement programs are altered in law, that’s a spending cut. Again, it’s perfectly appropriate to add up the resultant budgetary ramifications for a reasonable period to give some context for budgeteers.
“But even statutory spending caps, necessary and beneficial though they would be, are ultimately only promises to cut spending, unless they are backed by inescapable, automatic cuts if the caps are breached. Just about everything else is only a promise, and Washington breaks promises with breathtaking regularity.”
No kidding! Ya think?
C'mon man! That P.C. B.S. only goes so far. I know that we're all really the same and all that, but I can't stand it when someone tries to pretend that you can't tell that Boehner is orange!
Grow a pair man and say it like it is!
Do I need.../s
1. Yes
2. We believe in limited government.
It's not his race people don't like, it's the fact that people think he's Muslim. The only thing worse than that would be if he were a Catholic. /sarc
No matter what Boehner does it seems like there's a crowd ready to slam him without so much as skipping a beat from the last line of dung that was posted. First predicting how he'd fold as soon as President Jello walked into the room. Then, there was the series of posts about how he'd never pass the CCB and send it to the Senate. Then there was how he'd never stick to the CCB once the Senate shot it down. Now, it's about why is he looking ten years out.
Fine, then don't talk about what the deficit he can deal with is other than the deficit between now and October. After that he can make a new budget and deal with the next year. You can't have it both ways and pretend that SS and the other stuff is a single year issue, that's dividing the issues exactly the way the democrat fascist party always tries to, deal with some little things "for now" and work on the big issues after some commission meets or after blah, blah, blah. Divide and conquor, that's the ticket, whatever Boehner does, change the topic to come up with some other measure to use so you can keep saying he's no good.
So far he's made Mr Jello look like that infant he really is, gotten the RATS to start backpeddling on when the deadline for catastrophe is, forget the bunk about not paying SS because Barry knew Boehner wasn't falling for it, and now Boehner is too big for his britches. Perfect democrat technique.
JMHO
Who gave Pelosi and her Democrats the right to start Obamacare in 2013?
Any discussions about the budget extending past 2012 are worthless and meaningless.
The only items that can be considered authentic and that will possibly have any actual impact are those that are immediate and specific.
The rest is the same kind of lying double-talk that typifies almost everything politicians say or do.
You can start a program at a certain date.You can’t say that Congress can never repeal it.
You can’t force a congress in 2014 to implement a Trillion dollar cut.
” The problem is partly legal, partly political. Courts have long held that Congress cannot “bind” future Congresses—that is, it can’t force a future session of Congress to carry on its own policies. That practice, formally known as “legislative entrenchment,” is seen as privileging one group of lawmakers over another, “binding” future to the priorities set in the present”
http://www.slate.com/id/2260476/
“If [Boehner] was white, everyone here would be applauding him.”
That was very funny. A good laugh is essential now and then, especially with all these DC shenanigans going on. Thanks!
“You are correct. No agreement to bind a future congress to cutting is enforceable. But any tax increase continues until a future congress passes a bill through both houses, and the President signs. Similarly, debt incurred today will need to be paid in the future.”
Outstanding post and most succintly put. Why can’t just one of our guys put it this way when some talking head on national TV gives them the opening?
That's why 0's in such a hurry to get the funding underway. He knows that the next congress could just as easily pull the plug on his obamacare as it could fund it. He wants to have a ton of money already invested in the monstrosity in hopes that that may cause the next congress to go along.
That's why we need MORE real conservatives to land in D.C in January of 2013 practicing their mantra-FUBO!
Thanks. It just seemed like a slow news night.
Thanks. It just seemed like a slow news night.
This is nothing new Congress and presidents have been using those paper games for a very long time to pretend to make cuts that they really have no control or power to actually bring about. Even immediate “cuts” voted in are only valid if they are carried out, and not somehow funded in another way and/or need really cut in the first place.
Clinton’s supposed “balanced budget” that was much vaunted for creating a surplus never actually came to be beyond the paper it was printed on. How? by kicking the cuts down the road.
You see - what it comes down too - by pushing scheduled cuts out to other administrations, to other Congresses, to other people’s shoulders - it is a form of “passing the buck”. You can say you scheduled all sorts of cuts. That is how they can lay claim to making Trillions in cuts to spending... so what if the only REAL cuts (those that happen in the short-term) are minuscule - they CLAIM those big numbers for political reasons. It is a way of playing “wag the dog”.
The only thing that matters right now is... right now. That is why even Boehner is talking about including a raising of the debt limit in the negotiations. With any meaningful cuts, such a raising of the nation’s credit line would be completely unnecessary. This is the key, in my mind, to seeing through the smokescreen on BOTH sides. By playing this game, we are just continuing on the rail to the Greek problem. Raising the debt limit is proof that none of the politicians are serious about cutting spending NOW.
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.