Skip to comments.Lawmakers Renew Push to Reach Deal on Cutting Deficit (Boehner: Deal in Place To Cut $3-4 Trillion)
Posted on 07/23/2011 1:56:30 PM PDT by lbryce
Hoping to reassure markets in the wake of an angry breakdown in the federal budget negotiations, Congressional leaders raced Saturday to reach a new deficit-reduction agreement that Speaker John A. Boehner told colleagues could cut $3 trillion to $4 trillion in spending over 10 years.
We are working, and Im confident there will be resolution, Mr. Boehner told fellow House Republicans on an afternoon conference call, according to participants. There has to be.
Mr. Boehners comments came a little more than a week before the federal government risks defaulting on its debts, a fate that could be avoided if Congress agrees to increase the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.
The speaker, who abruptly broke off budget talks with President Obama on Friday evening, said he hoped the plan could be finished within 24 hours. He said the savings would most likely be achieved in two stages and would meet Republican fiscal demands that have led to a Congressional cliffhanger on the debt limit.
He spoke with his colleagues after Congressional leaders met at the White House on Saturday morning at the request of Mr. Obama. The meeting broke up without resolution just before noon, after about an hour of discussion.
Lawmakers and top aides said privately that despite the White House session, the search for a solution was now focused on Capitol Hill, where senior advisers gathered Saturday afternoon to exchange ideas on a plan that could get the go-ahead from top members of Congress.
In a statement after the White House session, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, indicated that he and his leadership counterparts were trying to devise a fallback measure to assure the borrowing ceiling was raised in time.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Excatly HOW does the Bonehead and GOP plan to reconcile “the need to cut spending now” with “$3-4 trillion in cuts OVER 10 YEARS”?
"Don't go all wobbly on me, George" - Margaret Thatcher to then President George H.W. Bush.
Yeah, and it wouldn’t surprise me if these cuts aren’t really decreases in the increase. That’s usually the way things go in D. C.
Forget the 10 year cut. We know how that goes. The question is: What’s the cut in 2012. Anything else is just make believe.
And I’m betting the 2012 cuts will be close to zero. Obama wants to spend $1.6 trillion or so that he doesn’t have in 2012. That needs to get carved down by at least $400-$500 billion. I’m not holding my breath.
$3-4 TRILLION in cuts over 10 years?
I need a year by year breakdown of exactly how much is cut per year and which specific programs will be cut each year and by how much. Let’s get SERIOUS about this.
Methinks the answer will be backloaded to the extreme. Which means, of course, as it has many times in the past, that few, if any, of the cuts will be made.
3 to 4 trillion over a decade is pure horse crap. We should be asking for 6 to 9 billion a year for ever until no debt. What the hell is the matter with these fools thinking we buy this crap?
Excuse me, but this fool doesn’t understand how your program works.
OVER 10 YEARS IS FRUAD and all of us know it.....
everyone knows that "future cuts" will never ever happen
I think 3-4 trillion is not enough. We are 165 billion short a month if nothing changes. So right off the bat you have to cut 165 billion a month to stay ahead.
Now add in the 500 billion to keep the place running for the next 3-4 months, you have to add another 170 billion the first 3 months then go back to 165 billion a month.
How do we cut 165 billion a month is the question? Obamacare would be about 35 billion a month. If they sell oil leases and open ANWAR, they can probably generate another 10 billion a month in taxes from the economy growing again.
Get rid of FrankenDodd and probably can generate another 10 billion a month in tax revenue that can go to pay down the debt.
I am guessing after that, everything gets cut by 25%.
How close am I?
I am sure that's exactly what they are, plus they won't ever happen
A deal that “could cut” over “10 years”?
“Excuse me, but this fool doesnt understand how your program works.”
You make up the difference on volume.
The McConnell "backup" doesn't even reach 2 trillion and was panned by Moodys.
This better be a decent deal. It won't be "great" because it hasn't the "teeth" of a Balanced Budget Amendment and no "10 year deal" has any meaning since one congress can't require the next to spend at certain levels going forward.
Cuts need to be made now and they better be over $100 billion like "Cut, Cap & Balance."
No matter what happens, Obama will spin it as a victory for himself and blame Republicans for anything that goes wrong.
“3 to 4 trillion over a decade is pure horse crap. We should be asking for 6 to 9 billion a year for ever until no debt.”
Your plan will take from 110-160 years to work. Not very effective.
There is a huge MOMENTUM and the spending train needs to be ended slowly else we will see Greek style rioting except our “offended” will have weapons. Do you really want to risk that?
Why doesn’t he just pressure the Senate to pass the house bill? Why bother to “hammer” out a new one? Spinless wimp a**ed republican leaders.
There WILL BE immediate FY 12 spending cuts like CCB for FY 12, otherwise the package won’t pass the House and won’t avoid a credit downgrade.
Boehner hasn’t caved to date. He knows his speakership is on the line with his own caucus. The problem is Reid and Schumer; and whether a few Senate moderate RATS will come to their senses - those terrified about Nov 2012.
Boehner has given BO the finger publicly - made him a hollow, empty suit over the last 48 hours. This is unprecedented, and Boehner deserves our appreciation, not criticism. I am not saying that we need to remain vigilant, but Boehner hasn’t caved yet.
If you want immediate cuts, you should be calling your reps and Senators - especially the RATS - to support Boehner.
“$3-4 trillion” looks like a big number. Over ten years, eh? The deficit over ten years is about $15 trillion, if they don’t make it higher next year than this year. The government-dependent (nearly all politically involved constituents) are going to suck every bit that they can out of this debt regime toward certain default.
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0600
Fax: (202) 225-5117
U.S. Capitol Switchboard, (202) 224-3121
“He was going to get his increase anyway so $3-$4 trillion is not too bad as long as they only increase the debt for one year. Make Obama have to deal with this again right at election time.”
Urkel needs the money THIS year to buy votes, nothing more, and the republicans should know this.
So long as were going to live in a fantasy land and accept a deal where $4 trillion is cut over 10 years, why not expand the fantasy to accept a 10-year plan to eliminate the deficit by the entire amount. That the present congress will do anything serious is in itself a fantasy.
If, in fact, they we’re serious, we would start the 10-year cuts in 2012, not sometime in the future.
Unfortunately, were in such deep crap, theres no way to pay off the debt unless the government raises the tax to 100%. To pay down at the debt at the present tax rates in 10-years, we would have to reduce federal spending by $1.4 trillion per year. After including the interest, we would, with present revenue, have to reduce the federal government by 75% to meet the objective. Perhaps a 75% reduction in federal spending would be a good thing.
Over ten years, boner you bastard, you cannot bind future congresses, so knock off the horse shit talk.
My point is that it is a fruad, needs to be 2 trillion NOW....
It's silly, isn't it. If we get 4 T over 10 years [assuming we really do get the cuts] then our debt will still increase over 1 T per year. We now owe 14.6 T so in 10 years we'll owe 24.6 T. And this is a plan?
Maybe I just don't understand.
That's what I want to know. How can they just leave it hanging without debate?
If the Republicans go for a deal that says $3-4 trillion in 10 years, they are toast. All of this arguing, pain and suffering - for what? For a deal that they could have gotten on day one?
Obama will be glad to guarantee all kinds of “cuts” over ten years. “Cuts” can be defined in any way in a ten-year period. They can be cuts in what Obama will claim he actually wanted to, or needed to, spend. And the best thing is, none of the cuts have to happen this year or next (which is, by the way, an election year). Actually, no real cuts ever have to happen with such a plan. They can disappear when a new president takes office in 2013 or in 2017. No one currently in office has to take responsibility for complying with the promise.
I am going to cut my family budget by $550,000 next year. I’m not going to buy the Bugatti Veyron Super Sports ($2,400,000). Instead, I’m going to settle for the Pagani Zonda Clinque Roadster ($1,850,000). Of course, the fact that I only make $80,000 a year means I will incur some debt. But, hey, I’m showing some real responsibility here.
(Thanks to http://www.thesupercars.org/top-cars/most-expensive-cars-in-the-world-top-10-list/ for the car prices.)
If Boehner doesn’t stand his ground against Reid he can kiss any chance of Republicans making any ground in the next elections. This is the Democrats mess for not passing anything since Obama took over. I will stay home on election day.
YES! BRING IT!
I will encourage my Representative, as well as other state Representatives to vote NO on any long-term debt reduction that does not have 2012 cuts of at least $500 billion (without additional spending).
We got duped into passing TARP on a phoney crisis and wasted $1 trillion dollars.
Even $1 in increased taxes will spell doom for the Republicans in 2012. This is not about the debt ceiling (Obama and Reid voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2006), it is about breaking the Republican base in 2012.
Stand firm. NO long-term agreement. If the "crisis" is now, then the solution must be now.
Personally, I don't care about the Asian markets opening on Monday, but I do care about the country we are leaving to my children and grandchildren.
Federal Employee Pension Is On GOP Chopping Block
Urgent and New Materials for Fighting Debt Deal
More fear mongering, first social security checks, now making they are freaking about this? I don't see the big deal. The pension plan would still be great. Better than most workers have, they can't have it all. This is reality. But, to scare the disabled and seniors to gain a mob is just wrong and sickening.
Prevent me from voting for the idiots that are destroying this Nation.
Understand the frustration..... but will it prevent the Nation from being destoyed if you don’t vote?
If Boehner caves to this thing from Kenya, nothing I do will save this Nation.
You’re exactly right. There’s no such thing as a 10 year budget. Congress can only pass a budget one year at a time, so the only thing that matters is the amount of spending cuts this year. A proposed cut even 2 or 3 years from now will never happen. There’s nothing that would force a future President to go along with some “deal” made in the year 2011.
This reminds me exactly of the TARP debate that was going on in 2008. Everybody thought the sky was going to fall and the world was going to come to an end if they didn’t pass TARP. So they spent 1 trillion dollars based on fear, and the Dow responded by dropping an additional 2,000 points. The economy still has not really recovered, and there’s no evidence that TARP did anything at all to help the economy. Just like TARP, the current Congress is going to pass another bill based on fear.
Do you really want to risk that?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YES! BRING IT!
You define the media “right wing radical”.
...could cut $3 trillion to $4 trillion in spending over 10 years...
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.