House passes "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" H R 2560

[AuH20]

Make your move, democrats. It will be interesting to see if embattled democratic senators like McCaskill blink on this.

 

[headhawg7]

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:





According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.

You are right. Its not significant.

 

[ord33]

Rand Paul proposed a 5 year balanced budget without raising taxes. If Republicans can rally around this Cut Cap Balance why do you assume that his budget has no chance.

Because it cuts 4 major departments completely....as in removes them. Do you really think the Senate would vote to get rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD all in one piece of legislation? I am all for it, but I think everyone knows it would never happen at this point (not that it shouldn't....it just won't). Think about how people freaked out in Wisconsin over the unions. Can you imagine what it would be like in the streets with the liberals and government workers? I just can't see the Senate voting to let that happen.

 

[tsai3904]

Because it cuts 4 major departments completely....as in removes them. Do you really think the Senate would vote to get rid of the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD all in one piece of legislation? I am all for it, but I think everyone knows it would never happen at this point (not that it shouldn't....it just won't). Think about how people freaked out in Wisconsin over the unions. Can you imagine what it would be like in the streets with the liberals and government workers? I just can't see the Senate voting to let that happen.

How can you believe that Ron Paul will be elected President and at the same time people will want to keep those departments?

 

[ord33]

How can you believe that Ron Paul will be elected President and at the same time people will want to keep those departments?

That is a good question really. I don't know if I really have a rational answer but I will try:

(1) Personally, I don't see the odds of Ron becoming president as extremely high, although I won't ever give up trying (2) As the debt crisis gets worse people will become more aware of our needs to cut spending and see these programs as non-essential. I think they are things people may come around to, but unfortunately not the population as a majority currently. Although back in the 80's getting rid of the Dept. of Educ. was on the Republican platform, so it wasn't too long ago. (3) More of a transition with one department completely removed at a time might be a more realistic approach to get it done (4) Ron Paul as President could get it done by not funding it and vetoing the budgets that appropriate (sp?) money to the departments? (5) Hope that Ron Paul scales back his talking points on getting rid of all the departments immediately while campaigning and focusing more on other not so "in your face" topics.

I want to see these departments cut as much as anyone here, but I was referring to the odds of getting both the House and Senate to approve of Rand's 5 year budget plan as is (or with minor variations). As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the votes are there right now. Or would face an Obama veto. Maybe it will take not increasing the debt limit for people to get down to business and it will open people's eyes. I have no idea.

My opinion is based more on a lack of faith in the population in General and the vast majority of Congress, not in the ideas of Ron or Rand.

 

[headhawg7]

That is a good question really. I don't know if I really have a rational answer but I will try:

(1) Personally, I don't see the odds of Ron becoming president as extremely high, although I won't ever give up trying (2) As the debt crisis gets worse people will become more aware of our needs to cut spending and see these programs as non-essential. I think they are things people may come around to, but unfortunately not the population as a majority currently. Although back in the 80's getting rid of the Dept. of Educ. was on the Republican platform, so it wasn't too long ago. (3) More of a transition with one department completely removed at a time might be a more realistic approach to get it done (4) Ron Paul as President could get it done by not funding it and vetoing the budgets that appropriate (sp?) money to the departments? (5) Hope that Ron Paul scales back his talking points on getting rid of all the departments immediately while campaigning and focusing more on other not so "in your face" topics.

I want to see these departments cut as much as anyone here, but I was referring to the odds of getting both the House and Senate to approve of Rand's 5 year budget plan as is (or with minor variations). As much as I hate to say it, I don't think the votes are there right now. Or would face an Obama veto. Maybe it will take not increasing the debt limit for people to get down to business and it will open people's eyes. I have no idea.

My opinion is based more on a lack of faith in the population in General and the vast majority of Congress, not in the ideas of Ron or Rand.

I know exactly what you mean. You....like me are a realist. We know what needs to happen but have been around long enough to know that politicians generally speaking will do whats in their best interest(re-election).

They are either going to make the tough decisions very shortly OR the market is going to make the decisions for them. If the market is forced to make the decisions it will be brutal and we will have virtually no control. At least right now I believe we still have the ability to determine our own fate.

The republicans need to wake up and realize that NOW is the time. For every cut you propose and whether or not it comes to pass the democrats and obama will spend double the cuts if the cuts even happen at all if the debt ceiling is raised. The economy will still be stagnant....with minimal growth and high unemployment. The so-called "mainstream economists" will start the drumbeat back up even more so than in 2008 for more stimulus. Once again it will be for shovel ready infrastructure programs.

So yes...I know exactly what you mean and I feel the same way. We know what needs to happen but we also know what is probably going to happen. The politicians will sell out for political expediency. I hope I am dead wrong. I will continue to do everything within my power to spread the word and help donate to ron paul's campaign but there is only so much one person can do.

 

[jmdrake]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?

Interesting perspective.

 

[AuH20]

Let's see. Ron stands up for principle and gets political points by being the only candidate to truly stand up against raising the debt ceiling. Rand and Amash get to actually influence legislation that's going to get passed anyway to at least make some kind of cuts and possibly threaten an Obama veto. If Obama vetos he can't blame the debt ceiling impasse on the GOP. If he doesn't then he will be severely restrained on spending money going forward. Sounds like a win/win to me. Am I missing something?

Rand isn't afraid to hit singles and doubles, while Ron is the consummate slugger. I respect both stances.

 

[swiftfoxmark2]

I love how everyone assumes that these promised future spending cuts will actually happen. Once the debt ceiling is raised, there is no guarantee of anything really. Seriously, since when have Republicans and Democrats ever given a flying rat's ass about the Constitution? They care more about their own policies and procedures within their respective Houses of Congress more than the law of the land.

Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, who is to say that Obama or Congressional leaders will pay heed to it?

 

[Romulus]

Rand isn't afraid to hit singles and doubles, while Ron is the consummate slugger. I respect both stances.

Right... I like to think this is Rand's version of chess going on here - especially since he coined 'cut cap and balance' - its a win for him. And Obomber veto's it, then he can't blame the R's. Rand is a lot smarter than we might give him credit for.

 

[angrydragon]

How did Bachmann vote? Ron could do a new ad, or would the old one still work?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

Oh, hell yeah!

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Funny you mention LOSER... more Queen Sheila Jackson Lee for our viewing pleasure. Ron Paul quoted too.

here's the vote breakout on HR 2560: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/606
http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2...nd-the-house-vs-reid-mcconnell-in-the-senate/

Phase 1 complete — PR knife fight between Boehner and the House vs. Reid & McConnell in the Senate?
Tuesday, July 19th at 10:40PM EDT

234-190
Some money quotes from the house floor:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D.-Tex.) called it the “tap dance losers’ club” law, describing the no-tax proposal as “breathtakingly arrogant.”
​

Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.) said both parties are to blame for the massive deficit.
“The reason we don’t cut spending, is one side loves entitlements, and the other side loves war,” Paul said.“Only in this room is it a disaster to balance the budget,” said James Lankford (R.-Okla.). “I don’t think Americans understand how out of touch we have become.”
​

And the jackpot:

Democrats called the plan “arbitrary,” “radical” and “foolish gimmicks,” making fun of its title and renaming it the “Duck, Dodge and Dismantle” law.
​

Excuse me??? Duck, Dodge and Dismantle? Is this some joke? Who was the brilliant Democratic staffer who came up with this one? The Democrats condemn themselves with their own words! How ironic. They have been ducking by not offering any plans of their own, dodging tough votes by not presenting any plans, and dismantling our nation’s economy by their incompetence and lack of action.


So phase one is complete, or I hope this is progression of a winning strategy. So what happened? The Gang of Six came out with their plan today with the obvious tactic of diluting the significance of this bill passing the House. It’s the biggest, juiciest, red herring whose purpose is to deflect the attention of the American people from actually looking at the House’s bill and thinking “What’s wrong with this?”, zeroing the eye of scrutiny on Obama and the Democratic party, and letting the poll numbers improve as more people ponder CCB. The MSM has been trying to downplay it as well, saying it doesn’t have a chance of passing the Senate and this was a useless effort (Many articles are out there like this I have to imagine). What puzzles me is Tom Coburn rejoining the Gang of Six and endorsing this plan wholeheartedly after presenting his own good plan the day before. However, note in that article the anxious, flattering, hallelujah reaction of the White House to the Gang of Six bill. The Senate and Obama are desperate to win the PR battle so they don’t have to take the tough votes and use a veto. This was alluded to over the weekend. Folks, the PR battle is now in full swing. Melt those phones in Washington.


This is smelling foul of a coordinated counter-response to CCB and kabuki theater my friends. Erick Erickson is looking more right as this plays along. I am encouraged by Boehner’s remarks to the Gang of Six proposal.


Stick to your guns, House GOP. The next bill you send out? Phase 2. A bill that stretches only 9-12 months and makes the debt ceiling an election year issue followed by a united announcement with taking a stand, saying there will be no more tax increases or debt. The more bills Obama and the Democratic Senate turn down from the House, the more callous and deaf they appear to the American people’s will not to increase taxes or the debt ceiling. Stay on the offense.
Jim DeMint hit a bullseye with his:
DeMint: Obama only backing Gang plan because GOP on the offensive


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...acking-gang-plan-because-gop-on-the-offensive

Washington DC is full of Buffoons

Rand claimed that this BBA would bring a balanced budget in 7 years.

Size of government/GDP wouldn't be capped at 20% until 2021 (which is a ridiculous proposal in and of itself)

So either the economy is going to grow at 10+% for seven plus years, or taxes would have to be raised.

What a loser of a proposal, I can't believe Rand is actually pushing this crap.

And he thinks Ron is wrong on this? What a failure.

This is why people were pissed at Rand during the campaign: I and many others cannot and will not stand for being squishy and engaging in Washington bullshit politics.