Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108817)	7/27/2011 1:21:17 PM
From: HPilot	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

The Reid bill has more savings than Boehner plan. They were including the entire bill for Ried. The Boehner plan would have additional cuts next April, and more the year after. Potentially the Boehner plan could have many more cuts, especially in 2013 when the GOP takes over the Senate.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108817)	7/27/2011 2:41:54 PM
From: tonto	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

The details which you left out are important. Part of the disparity is owed to the fact that the House bill takes a two-step approach to raising the debt ceiling and therefore postpones actions on major entitlement savings until November and December. For this reason, Boehner’s forces would argue the race has just begun, and the scores now are an incomplete picture. But the bigger issue is sure to be the Senate’s willingness to take advantage of CBO baseline rules and claim large savings from winding down U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In essence the Senate plan allows a full $127 billion for war-related costs in 2012 and then caps future spending at $450 billion. Republicans argue that these limits have no relevance to the debate at hand, but under CBO rules they yield at least $1.044 trillion in additional savings not in the Boehner package. When interest savings are factored in, the net impact could be close to $1.250 trillion and largely explains the disparity between the two plans, which are relatively close in how each treats more routine appropriations for government operations. Not all is entirely good news for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who crafted the Senate package. As introduced, the bill claimed $2.7 trillion in savings, more than enough to offset what was proposed to be a $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase to carry the Treasury into 2013 and past the 2012 elections. Read more: politico.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108817)	7/27/2011 3:34:40 PM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

The Reid bill has more savings than Boehner plan. HUH??? What are you fabricating now, kenny_troll? Dem lawmaker: 'Nobody I know' has seen Reid plan A House Democrat indicated Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) might not have party members' votes locked down for his deficit proposal. "I'm not going to commit to something that nobody I know has seen and had a chance to analyze," Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said. "I want to see it." thehill.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108817)	7/27/2011 4:31:51 PM
From: MJ	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

REID IS SELLING DEAL THAT IS A PIG IN THE POKE Gee, Reid has a real deal. Reid wants to take 10 YEARS TO REDUCE THE DEFICiT by only $2. Trillion dollars. Yes, you got it-------10 years to cut $2. Trillion dollars when it ONLY TOOK just 2 YEARS TO CREATE a $5 Trillion deficit. Reid and Obama: $5,000.000,000,000.00 Deficit Createdin 2 years Reid: $2,000,000,000,000.00 Deficit Reduction Will take 10 Years

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108817)	7/28/2011 12:47:10 PM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

...Indeed, the best way to think about the Reid plan is that it is simply the Boehner plan with fake cuts (largely war spending) added on. Put differently, executing the Reid plan is the same as executing the Boehner plan and then adding an unrestricted debt limit increase on at the end. Since so-called “clean” increases are a signal to markets that the U.S. cannot address its fundamental problems, this is extremely dangerous and undesirable. The bottom line. The ideal debt-limit package would combine up-front discretionary cuts with medium-term discretionary controls and real policy changes to entitlement programs that address the spending explosion and display to international capital markets the ability of the United States to address the debt threat... nationalreview.com