House passes GOP’s ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ plan 234-190

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Joe wrote:

....I had heard it only proposed that the Gov't cut spending...

Well, you first have to acknowledge that there is a problem, right? Don't worry Archer, its not going anywhere. You can keep spending and kicking cans!

Kick it right up to 2012 and then the R's will take over the Senate too along with the White House!

Then why are 70% of Americans opposed to the Republican plan?

Can I see that link? And how are they opposed when it was just passsed yesterday? 70% knew what was in it when even Obama doesn't? Interesting. Love to see the link.

It was widely reported on all of the networks.

Nice try! Don't make up figures without a link. It passed yesterday but already they have a poll where 70% are against it? You know that isn't true.

Something the Dog Said wrote: It was widely reported on all of the networks.

You probably meant "all the [legitimate] networks"... For some, unless it shows up on Fox, they'll never see it....

I've been asking for days to have someone post the details of the Republican plan, to no avail. Cut what? How do they plan to balance the budget....and cap spending? that goes back to what are you going to cut to stay under that cap?

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Joe wrote:

....I had heard it only proposed that the Gov't cut spending...

Well, you first have to acknowledge that there is a problem, right? Don't worry Archer, its not going anywhere. You can keep spending and kicking cans!

Kick it right up to 2012 and then the R's will take over the Senate too along with the White House!

Then why are 70% of Americans opposed to the Republican plan?

Can I see that link? And how are they opposed when it was just passsed yesterday? 70% knew what was in it when even Obama doesn't? Interesting. Love to see the link.

It was widely reported on all of the networks.

Nice try! Don't make up figures without a link. It passed yesterday but already they have a poll where 70% are against it? You know that isn't true.

It works so well for you, I thought I might as well do it:

The Viking wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Do you have any kind of data behind your claim that taxing the wealthy won't raise any real money?

$3 billion over the next 10 years. That has been talked about over all of the networks. That is 1/10th of 1 percent of the $3 trillion that they want to bring back in, in the next 10 years. They are fightiing for peanuts instead of trying to get people back to work to raise more revenue that way.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=132349 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=132349<!-- l -->

"More than seven in 10 respondents in the Post/ABC poll — 72 percent — said they favored the idea of raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more to help shrink the debt.

While, not surprisingly, 87 percent of Democrats supported such a move, so did 54 percent of self-identified Republicans. And, nearly six in 10 people said they would support raising taxes on oil and gas companies, including 55 percent of Republicans who agreed with the idea."

"Other popular debt-reducing proposals included raising taxes on hedge funds (64 percent support) and raising taxes and/or premiums for wealthier Americans on Medicare (61 percent) and Social Security (66 percent).

While majorities were open to the idea of making more affluent Americans pay more for entitlement programs, the idea of making major changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the general population were broadly unpopular.

Seventy-two percent of people opposed cutting spending on Medicaid as a means of debt reduction, while 54 percent disagreed with the idea of raising the retirement age for Medicare from 65 years old to 67. Fifty-three percent didn’t like the idea of making changes to Social Security so that benefits increased at a slower rate. (Narrow majorities of Republicans opposed those proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security, for what it’s worth.)"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html
Sounds like the vast majority of Americans stand behind President Obama's plan, not the Republican soaking the poor scheme.

archer wrote: I've been asking for days to have someone post the details of the Republican plan, to no avail. Cut what? How do they plan to balance the budget....and cap spending? that goes back to what are you going to cut to stay under that cap?

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Roadmap2Final2.pdf

Now please direct me to where I can find any such detailed plan from the Dems, including the CBO analysis?

That's Ryan's plan, I'm looking for info on the plan passed yesterday

I think most everyone knows what's in his plan and how unworkable and punitive it is, even a lot of Republicans agreed it wouldn't work

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: I've been asking for days to have someone post the details of the Republican plan, to no avail. Cut what? How do they plan to balance the budget....and cap spending? that goes back to what are you going to cut to stay under that cap?

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Roadmap2Final2.pdf

Now please direct me to where I can find any such detailed plan from the Dems, including the CBO analysis?

That is a separate bill from what was passed yesterday. The Ryan plan was DOA back in January. Currently there are 4 plans being considered. The House Republican plan that offers up "goals" with no specifics, the McConnell plan to just give the authority for raising the debt limit to Obama, the Gang of Six plan, and the Obama plan.

The House Republican plan focuses solely on preserving special interest tax loopholes and tax breaks for the rich while sticking it to the poor and elderly. The Gang Of Six plan is similar to the Obama plan with a combination of cuts while closing the special interest loopholes and wealthy tax breaks.

SDS. that is pretty much what I understood....the plan that was passed by the house yesterday set goals, but no specifics on how to achieve them.....What I still can't understand is, if the Republicans are so interested in lowering the deficit, why did they not applaud Obama's plan that would cut the deficit by 4 trillion over 10 yrs? instead they began by pushing a plan that only cut it by 1.5 trillion, now up to 2.5 trillion over the same time. Perhaps they really are not interested in cutting the deficit, just making a lot of goals that they have no intention of working towards, but look real pretty on paper.

Yes, I know it was the Ryan plan. It's already passed in the House. Yes, it's essentially DOA because the Senate won't pass it nor will the President sign it. But archer keeps saying the Repubs have no specifcs, so there it is. Where is the Dem's 100 page plan?

It does give long term specific proposals. Supposedly if the Repubs were in power they would incorporate many/some of them to achieve the stated goals of the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan.

So far as that plan goes, here is a copy of it...

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Cut-Cap-Balance_Act--House_FINAL_TEXT--07-15-11pdf.pdf

It calls for modifying the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. For next year it calls for reducing discretionary spending by just over $100 billion (from $1.225 trillion to $1.019 trillion). It exempts cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Veteren's Benefits and services.

It leaves it to Congress to define the cuts, but according to this article about 2/3rd's would come from department and agency budgets, and 1/3rd from automatically paid benefits (whatever that is). Again, it cuts discretionary spending, not entitlements.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/18/house-gop-readies-cut-cap-balance-plan/

The rest is about future caps. It's tough to be specific on that because it would be limits on future budgets. You'd have to let future Congress' determine specifics, just as you do for any future budget.

Again, the Ryan plan gives many long term cost reduction details which could be incorporated if the Repubs were in power, but then who knows what they'd actually do?

What passed the other day was a proposed change in the law. It gave specific targets, but did not not list specific programs to cut, leaving that to Congress. Normally you'd list the specifics in a budget (you know, that thing we haven't had from the Dems for 2 1/2 years). I suppose you could list specifics in a law as well, but I don't know how often it's done. And if you did, I'd think it could only be for the near future (like this year) since how would you know what's going to happen in the future?