Cut, Cap And Balance

[A. BETTIK]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Crockett]

It's certainly bad law. Basically it would stratify tax rates at historic lows and make it darned near impossible to ever close a tax loophole. The only way to change would be a supermajority in both houses, which since campaign contribution limits are a thing of the past and decent special interest could thwart. I'm all for reining in spending, but to take revenue changes off the table forever is just nuts.

 

[Burnt Orange Bevo]

Looks like Boehner has walked out on the debt negotiations with Obama and the Republicans still refuse to any tax/revenue increases.

That's just B.S. Of course, I don't want higher taxes and absolutely expect to see an emphasis on spending cuts (all areas, including the Pentagon), but to dogmatically insist on nada/zero tax increases is cutting off your nose to spite your face. (As a moderate on most issues,) I like Republican principles but have come to despise their MO. I'm really glad Boehner's Republicans have gotten Obama to agree to such huge spending cuts (no small miracle), but if Uncle Sam starts defaulting on obligations, I'm gonna blame it on the Pubs.

 

[Oilfield]

Have you seen an alternative plan?

 

[Larry T. Spider]

If the republicans are into playing politics, I would try to get the house to pass a bill with massive spending cuts with tiny tax increases. I'm talking balance the budget type cuts with a 1 or 2% hike in taxes. It would really put the ball in the dems court. If they accept it, you have a balanced budget, which seems like a pipe dream at this point. If they don't pass it, they look like the jerks that wouldn't pass a bill that includes spending cuts and tax increases.

 

[Gone To Texas]

According to Boehner, he had agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases with agreement from the WH, then Obama "moved the goalpost" and demanded $1.2 trillion. If this version is accurate, I'm glad he walked out.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

You cannot negotiate in good faith with a weasel like BHO.

 

[JohnnyYuma]

I'm sure BO's plan was similar to those that Repubs had agreed to in past negotiations where the tax increases were immediate and the cuts were somewhere in the future. When the future came the cuts disappeared. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2013. Why not just do the cuts now and let the Bush cuts expire?

 

[YoLaDu]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[zork]

why not just go back to the 2008, pre-stimulus budget?

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Larry T. Spider]

Well, if I can come up with that at 3am after a night of drinking, these jackasses should be able to come up with something.

 

[THEU]

I like Cut, Cap, and Balance, because it basically says beyond politics we have to agree to increase spending.
I think that making it more difficult to spend money in DC is a good thing. It doesn't make it impossible, it makes it harder. Based on how BOTH parties have spent in the past, I am all for making it harder for either party to spend. Neither party will have a 2/3's majority in both houses that I can foresee. That means that the parties have to work together to increase spending. What is wrong with that? I can't come up with why the American people would be opposed to that.

 

[Oilfield]

CC&B is a plan, in writing. It may have its shortcomings but it is a plan and that is something that the White House is unwilling to bring to the discussion.

Pathetic leadership.