PDA

View Full Version : House passes cut cap and balance bill



wingrider
07-20-2011, 12:52 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2560:

this is the bill in its entirety

snip
In a 234-190 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Cap, Cut and Balance Act of 2011" crafted by House Republicans. The bill, which bars any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress first sends a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, calls for a $1.5 trillion cut in this year's deficit and caps federal spending to 24 percent of the gross domestic product.

if the senate votes this down by democrat control, they will be the ones who will be responsible for the downgrading of our credit rating.

if the senate passes this bill and the president vetoes it like he has promised then it will be his fault for the downgrade and possible economic destrution of the USA.. why does Obama want to destroy America??

MMC
07-20-2011, 03:43 AM
Hiya LoVE.....Do you think the House accomplished anything with the passage of this bill?

wingrider
07-20-2011, 04:11 AM
sort of.. I think the house has done their job at coming up with a plan but it is going to bbe voted down in the senate.. if by any chance the sanate passes it. Obanana will veto it.. when he does so and the country defaults then the republicans will have plenty of ammo for the upcoming election because they can say look we had a bill that would give us a balanced budget amendment, would cut spending and cap the amount of money that government can spend per year , this is goning to hurt obanana because most americans are getting pretty well fed up with the petty dictator tactics of the whitehouse. JMO

MMC
07-20-2011, 04:17 AM
Still I keep hearing that 3 out 4 Americans would prefer we don't fault. Most understand it doesnt decrease the debt anyways. Nor is this anything that resolves the problem. So technically this is a stop-gap measure to balance a budget for a carry-over again.....right?

wingrider
07-20-2011, 04:24 AM
nope read the bill

MMC
07-20-2011, 04:45 AM
`(b) Limits- In this section, the term `discretionary spending limits' means for fiscal year 2012: for the discretionary category, $1,019,402,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,224,568,000,000 in outlays.

`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--

`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by

`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.

`(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays-

`(1) DETERMINING THE GDP OUTLAY LIMIT- The Office of Management and Budget shall establish in the President's budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.

See to me it is a play on the words so that in 2013 they will do the same thing all over again.....except the numbers will now not be the same. Nor will those measures go into effect for those years. Which then never puts anything in place that is permanent and will not have to thrown into any calculations at some other point in time......know what I mean?

wingrider
07-20-2011, 05:25 AM
hmm I am reading it differently,

I read it to mean that each year the feds can only spend the percentage of the gdp that is authorized for that year, ie


21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021. and that certain specifics such as social security, veterans cannot be downgraded, that whatever it takes to pay those bills must be paid no matter what.

now true the debt cieling will be at 16 trillion but can never fo over that amount.. in other words no more raising the debt cieling.

MMC
07-20-2011, 05:37 AM
Maybe I was reading it wrong.....as my point was what if we are already over the limit at any point during those years. Pretty much knocks all of that out of the ballpark. Course I am not an economics major.

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 05:45 AM
question, would we be having this discussion at had congress and the president respected the limits of their constitutional authority....what if am getting at is that if dc has no respect for bedrock law and attached federal law now, is the answer to this problem passing yet another law.....

wingrider
07-20-2011, 05:52 AM
can't say I have the answer to that grumpy, but at least this will have a balanced budget amendment pursuant to the constitution.. once ratified by the states it means that like the states the feds have to balance thier books each year or cut additional spending.

MMC I am no conomist either so we are in the same boat

MMC
07-20-2011, 07:28 AM
I think Grumpy asks the appropriate question. Which has an answer and Congress itself has not followed such with just themselves, let alone anything a White-house Administration is putting out.

Still all state Obama is a Constitutional Attorney.....which means he should have known this from the get go. Yet he never walked in the door talking about it.....did he now?

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 09:02 AM
can't say I have the answer to that grumpy, but at least this will have a balanced budget amendment pursuant to the constitution.. once ratified by the states it means that like the states the feds have to balance thier books each year or cut additional spending.

MMC I am no conomist either so we are in the same boat

i live in a state where the gov claims to have balanced the budget but he did so by borrowing more money....if i am $50 short and borrow $50 to make up the shortfall do i not now owe $50 plus interest and plus the burden of not having addressed the shortfall.....mmc, the messiah claimed to be a constitutional law professor, which of course he never was....

Conley
07-20-2011, 09:08 AM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2560:

this is the bill in its entirety

snip
In a 234-190 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Cap, Cut and Balance Act of 2011" crafted by House Republicans. The bill, which bars any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress first sends a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, calls for a $1.5 trillion cut in this year's deficit and caps federal spending to 24 percent of the gross domestic product.

if the senate votes this down by democrat control, they will be the ones who will be responsible for the downgrading of our credit rating.

if the senate passes this bill and the president vetoes it like he has promised then it will be his fault for the downgrade and possible economic destrution of the USA.. why does Obama want to destroy America??


???

i'm confused...i thought our credit rating only goes down and all that if we default on the loans, yes? and it's the republicans who are threatening to cause that in order to break the democrat spending. the dems are trying to keep up their spending and keep growing the deficit as a result. as long as the debt ceiling gets raised then they can do that without short term consequence? (but of course long term we are screwed)

MMC
07-20-2011, 01:11 PM
Which then I thought we can be charged more interests on our loans.....

Conley
07-20-2011, 01:16 PM
Probably, but I sure hope it doesn't come to that...

MMC
07-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Hiya CL.....I heard this morning that the gang of six has taken the Lead and that they have told the right and the left that a compromise must be struck.....to stop with the political posturing that they have a plan and it looks like it's soemthing to work with.

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 02:46 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2560:

this is the bill in its entirety

snip
In a 234-190 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Cap, Cut and Balance Act of 2011" crafted by House Republicans. The bill, which bars any increase in the debt ceiling unless Congress first sends a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, calls for a $1.5 trillion cut in this year's deficit and caps federal spending to 24 percent of the gross domestic product.

if the senate votes this down by democrat control, they will be the ones who will be responsible for the downgrading of our credit rating.

if the senate passes this bill and the president vetoes it like he has promised then it will be his fault for the downgrade and possible economic destrution of the USA.. why does Obama want to destroy America??


???

i'm confused...i thought our credit rating only goes down and all that if we default on the loans, yes? and it's the republicans who are threatening to cause that in order to break the democrat spending. the dems are trying to keep up their spending and keep growing the deficit as a result. as long as the debt ceiling gets raised then they can do that without short term consequence? (but of course long term we are screwed)

there will be no default son, that is another obama scare tactic and lie....

Conley
07-20-2011, 02:49 PM
Cool, I'm glad to hear it!

I don't know who to believe but will trust in the one, the only, the all knowing GRUMPY

;D

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 06:36 PM
Cool, I'm glad to hear it!

I don't know who to believe but will trust in the one, the only, the all knowing GRUMPY

;D

and because you asked for it this is what this country should do....do not elevate the debt ceiling, prioritize payments, ss and def.....everything else is on the table to be cut....it really is not complicated boys and girls....of course along with this i would immediately slide to a flat tax and kick the depts of ed, ag, trans, hhs, homeland security and energy to the curb....further let us shrink the epa and demand that all regulatory agencies submit new regs to congress for approval....then let us move on repealing the 17th amendment and repeal the 1964 civil rights act....but let us just start with not raising the debt limit and force govt to change the way it does business.....

Conley
07-20-2011, 06:37 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?

Mister D
07-20-2011, 06:44 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?


Any intellectually consistent libertarian should have a problem with the the Civil Rights Act as it essentially legislates morality. It imposes the will of the state on private property. As a conservative, not only do I think it;s bad law but I think the federal government's crusade for integration set race relations back decades. Moreover, it was whopping failure. It would be hard to condemn if they had stopped at making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens of the USA but they went much further.

Conley
07-20-2011, 06:48 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?


Any intellectually consistent libertarian should have a problem with the the Civil Rights Act as it essentially legislates morality. It imposes the will of the state on private property. As a conservative, not only do I think it;s bad law but I think the federal government's crusade for integration set race relations back decades. Moreover, it was whopping failure. It would be hard to condemn if they had stopped at making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens of the USA but they went much further.


Interesting.

Other than "making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens" I really don't know what it says. I suppose I should do my own research and read it word for word to learn more, as it is a bit presumptuous of me to expect the posters on this site to educate me. Still, if anyone wants to go more in depth feel free :)

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 06:53 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?

d is correct, to elaborate we created protected minorities which of course gave birth to the eeoc and affirmative action, we blurred the lines between public and private property rights and effectively gave govt the door to be all up in your business something you are fearful is the desire of social conservatives....further a multitude of illegal well intention programs sprang forth from this basically destroying the black man, family and culture, not to mention the overall deleterious effects upon public ed....

Mister D
07-20-2011, 06:55 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?


Any intellectually consistent libertarian should have a problem with the the Civil Rights Act as it essentially legislates morality. It imposes the will of the state on private property. As a conservative, not only do I think it;s bad law but I think the federal government's crusade for integration set race relations back decades. Moreover, it was whopping failure. It would be hard to condemn if they had stopped at making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens of the USA but they went much further.


Interesting.

Other than "making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens" I really don't know what it says. I suppose I should do my own research and read it word for word to learn more, as it is a bit presumptuous of me to expect the posters on this site to educate me. Still, if anyone wants to go more in depth feel free :)


It's Title II that is cause for concern.

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII

Title VII is also problematic.

GRUMPY
07-20-2011, 06:59 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?


Any intellectually consistent libertarian should have a problem with the the Civil Rights Act as it essentially legislates morality. It imposes the will of the state on private property. As a conservative, not only do I think it;s bad law but I think the federal government's crusade for integration set race relations back decades. Moreover, it was whopping failure. It would be hard to condemn if they had stopped at making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens of the USA but they went much further.


Interesting.

Other than "making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens" I really don't know what it says. I suppose I should do my own research and read it word for word to learn more, as it is a bit presumptuous of me to expect the posters on this site to educate me. Still, if anyone wants to go more in depth feel free :)


It's Title II that is cause for concern.

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII

Title VII is also problematic.

extremely so.....

Mister D
07-20-2011, 07:03 PM
what's wrong with the civil rights act?


Any intellectually consistent libertarian should have a problem with the the Civil Rights Act as it essentially legislates morality. It imposes the will of the state on private property. As a conservative, not only do I think it;s bad law but I think the federal government's crusade for integration set race relations back decades. Moreover, it was whopping failure. It would be hard to condemn if they had stopped at making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens of the USA but they went much further.


Interesting.

Other than "making sure all public facilities are available equally to all citizens" I really don't know what it says. I suppose I should do my own research and read it word for word to learn more, as it is a bit presumptuous of me to expect the posters on this site to educate me. Still, if anyone wants to go more in depth feel free :)


It's Title II that is cause for concern.

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII

Title VII is also problematic.

extremely so.....


Unfortunately, these laws have become sacrosanct and a positive consensus regarding them has been manufactured. You saw what happened to Rand Paul after daring to question it. The unmitigated gall! :o ::)

Regarding Title VII, reverse discrimination cases have been growing in number and are becoming increasingly successful.

wingrider
07-20-2011, 11:24 PM
hiya guys and gals,

while I do appreaciate the history of the civil rights act and all the pitfalls that came after it.

this thread is about the passage in the House of the cut, cap and balance bill..


ok???

MMC
07-21-2011, 02:30 AM
Okay another thing I was looking at LoVE is to go thru the pros and cons so when discussing with those of the left concerning the bill and what programs will be cut. As opposed to raising taxes.

As you know I truly am not favoring corporatists for either side. Dunno, whenever we get into the debate as to what and why with economics. So knowing the lefts argument of rising taxes on the upper wealthy in this country and why they feel that another must penalized so that others are taken care of. Now some of them say go after the uber rich.

My thought is how do they do this without such affecting the rest of us?

wingrider
07-21-2011, 04:45 AM
fair question there MMC,

I never have understood the liberal concept of punishing success, I do not know if it is jealousy, or just an ingrained desire to take from someone elses hard earned success and redistribute to those who have less,, the problem I see with this line of thinking is the reason most people are poor lies in to camps,

!. not willing to do the hard work required to be successfull

2. not willing to invest in their own future

MMC
07-21-2011, 05:50 AM
Well it does kind of deal with a concept of being bias against a specific group of people. Something about rights for others which was used as an arguement with respects to rights to different groups of people and being treated equal.

Yet now when it comes to economics its throw the ethics and morality out of the picture. But still talk about Wealth Distibution. Supply-side economics vs spend to motivate.

What do you think about Corporations? Muliti-National Corporations are an agglomeration of Owners not one individual. What do think concerning the Corporate TAX and are they paying to high of a Tax? Yet they still move their companies over seas. Move most of the banking overseas. Put whatever they can into tax shelters.....plus write off whatever they can, give to all those charities......and are still making billions in profits. Yet want to fight about benefits for those that help make them what they are.

Just with the medical insurance.....said A company trains people with machinery of some sorts. Accidents take place during the trainng process. Who is responsible for taking care of the medical injury? Company or individual. Of Course Lawsuits follow and then the blame game is thrown into the mix. On some issues there is really no complexity to them. Doing the right thing is the first step.

Just like with spending.....and the giving of Aid to other foreign countries. Don't get me wrong I am not saying we should not be aiding others. But when economic disaters are running amuck and ones infratructure and expansion of government is over extended. Then that spending must be put in check first. Must be significantly reduced. No matter who is in Office or power. Neither side wants to consider some of this. Before throwing up cutting entitlements. Both sides generalize on the waste. Yet you yourself question the fact that these politicians didn't even include themselves. Are the numbers on the waste accurate?