Coburn Ups Ante in Debt Ceiling Standoff, Pushes Plan to Save $9 Trillion

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Coburn Ups Ante in Debt Ceiling Standoff, Pushes Plan to Save $9 Trillion
At a time when President Obama and lawmakers of both parties are struggling to find spending cuts of $2 trillion to $4 trillion, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is offering his colleagues a menu of options for far more ambitious savings.

Coburn is unveiling a plan to reduce deficit spending by a whopping $9 trillion, shrink government by some 20 percent and balance the budget, all within 10 years.

Related Stories
Many States End Year in Surplus as Washington Debates New Borrowing Limit
Debt Ceiling Debate Moves From White House to Congress, Prospects Uncertain
"It's specific, it's detailed, it makes hard choices," Coburn said. "And it's rough, but it's necessary."

Coburn questioned all the agonizing over the search for much smaller savings of some $2 trillion, saying, "$2 trillion doesn't even pay our interest over the next 10 years. That's with no increase in interest rates."

Coburn's 600-page report lays out hundreds of spending cuts from every nook and cranny of the federal government.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...f-pushes-plan-to-save-trillion/#ixzz1SVyJjfTT

i haven't seen a full copy, but the bits reported on i agree with for the most part...the 500K mtg deduction is low...that is a pure middle class home in most of cali and other major cities...

why are dems so opposed this?
 
Yurt said:
Coburn Ups Ante in Debt Ceiling Standoff, Pushes Plan to Save $9 Trillion
At a time when President Obama and lawmakers of both parties are struggling to find spending cuts of $2 trillion to $4 trillion, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is offering his colleagues a menu of options for far more ambitious savings.

Coburn is unveiling a plan to reduce deficit spending by a whopping $9 trillion, shrink government by some 20 percent and balance the budget, all within 10 years.

Related Stories
Many States End Year in Surplus as Washington Debates New Borrowing Limit
Debt Ceiling Debate Moves From White House to Congress, Prospects Uncertain
"It's specific, it's detailed, it makes hard choices," Coburn said. "And it's rough, but it's necessary."

Coburn questioned all the agonizing over the search for much smaller savings of some $2 trillion, saying, "$2 trillion doesn't even pay our interest over the next 10 years. That's with no increase in interest rates."

Coburn's 600-page report lays out hundreds of spending cuts from every nook and cranny of the federal government.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...f-pushes-plan-to-save-trillion/#ixzz1SVyJjfTT

i haven't seen a full copy, but the bits reported on i agree with for the most part...the 500K mtg deduction is low...that is a pure middle class home in most of cali and other major cities...

why are dems so opposed this?
Click to expand...

It seems like conservatives are kind of opposed to it as well.

If they're using over 10 years figures (I don't know why Washington is so fund of such figures) then, on a yearly basis, that's about 100 billion from the defense department, 100 billion from other discretionary programs, 50 billion from unspecified federal agencies, and 100 billion in revenue from getting rid of tax deducations. I've proposed cuts around such levels before, although I did take more from the DoD. He doesn't seem to touch mandatory programs, and these things are going to need reform - SS is salvageable in it's current form, but we need to start saving now to pay for later costs or else it's all going to fall apart, Medicare is simply going to explode without some sort of broad medical reform to reign in costs. All in all doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, although I'd need to see specifics.
 
I have to respect the fact that he has the balls to throw it up on the table like that. I don't agree with all the specifics particularly his reconfiguration of Social Security, as SS is not a problem, it's the fucking thieves who keep raiding it. I also think his 1 trillion over 10 years cut in military spending is rather pathetic but hell....he's the only Republican offering cuts in military spending. Hats off there! Be that as it may, this is real leadership coming out of the Republican party. I'm flabergasted! Fuck the tea party Coburn has the right idea!
 
His plan does include "entitlement reform", which I doubt is going to fly. It also eliminates all educational spending, amongst other things. I'm surprised he cut so little after going after such an essential piece of spending. And states are just going to either have to dumb down our kids or raise taxes to pay for education anyway, and I imagine their just going to stop having schools in places like the Mississippi delta.
 
Watermark said:
It seems like conservatives are kind of opposed to it as well.

If they're using over 10 years figures (I don't know why Washington is so fund of such figures) then, on a yearly basis, that's about 100 billion from the defense department, 100 billion from other discretionary programs, 50 billion from unspecified federal agencies, and 100 billion in revenue from getting rid of tax deducations. I've proposed cuts around such levels before, although I did take more from the DoD. He doesn't seem to touch mandatory programs, and these things are going to need reform - SS is salvageable in it's current form, but we need to start saving now to pay for later costs or else it's all going to fall apart, Medicare is simply going to explode without some sort of broad medical reform to reign in costs. All in all doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, although I'd need to see specifics.
Click to expand...

true...but dems are adamately opposed in contrast to some cons....i wish we could read the whole thing, it sounds like a great idea and he hit military spending
 
Yurt said:
true...but dems are adamately opposed in contrast to some cons....i wish we could read the whole thing, it sounds like a great idea and he hit military spending
Click to expand...

Yea that's what surprized me. He actually hit military spending and significantly too but not by nearly enough but that took tremendous courage on his part.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea that's what surprized me. He actually hit military spending and significantly too but not by nearly enough but that took tremendous courage on his part.
Click to expand...

there will never be full agreement by both sides. but why not start with his plan as the building blocks? at least his plan cuts areas that both dems and pubs want cut, it is just about how much to cut.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Have you tried educating Watermark lately? Now think of a whole Delta of them.....could get a bit expensive! Just think about all the paste you'd have to buy!!
Click to expand...

we don't educate Watermarks......you pass them through till they are old enough to drop out, then give them jobs selling paste.....
 
Yurt said:
there will never be full agreement by both sides. but why not start with his plan as the building blocks? at least his plan cuts areas that both dems and pubs want cut, it is just about how much to cut.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that the House Republican budget plan that passed a short while ago only cut $4T over 10 years. It was so bad that some Senate Republicans voted against it. Pretending that a plan that cuts more than double the plan that so-called moderate Republicans could not support should serve as the starting point for negotiations is insane.

Coburn's job is to set the right-most marker. The "plan" is not intended to be taken seriously by anyone at all. It's sole purpose is to make the $4T "Gang of Six" plan look reasonable notwithstanding that the $4T number used to be the right-most plan out there (the one passed by House Republicans).
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Keep in mind that the House Republican budget plan that passed a short while ago only cut $4T over 10 years. It was so bad that some Senate Republicans voted against it. Pretending that a plan that cuts more than double the plan that so-called moderate Republicans could not support should serve as the starting point for negotiations is insane.

Coburn's job is to set the right-most marker. The "plan" is not intended to be taken seriously by anyone at all. It's sole purpose is to make the $4T "Gang of Six" plan look reasonable notwithstanding that the $4T number used to be the right-most plan out there (the one passed by House Republicans).
Click to expand...

I think you're confused with who put the $4T out there: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/13/president-obama-s-framework-4-trillion-deficit-reduction
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Keep in mind that the House Republican budget plan that passed a short while ago only cut $4T over 10 years. It was so bad that some Senate Republicans voted against it. Pretending that a plan that cuts more than double the plan that so-called moderate Republicans could not support should serve as the starting point for negotiations is insane.

Coburn's job is to set the right-most marker. The "plan" is not intended to be taken seriously by anyone at all. It's sole purpose is to make the $4T "Gang of Six" plan look reasonable notwithstanding that the $4T number used to be the right-most plan out there (the one passed by House Republicans).
Click to expand...

i know that...he even said it would not be taken serious...that is why i think it is a good building block and from what i've read, it is very detailed. both pubs and dems don't support it, but at least there is information being used, it shouldn't be rejected outright.

i have no problem cutting 4 or 5 trillion. the cuts need to happen, businesses, families do this all the time and get their shit in order. why is the government any different? oh yeah...because your basic belief is the tax payers are a bottomless money pit....;)
 
Annie said:
I think you're confused with who put the $4T out there: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/13/president-obama-s-framework-4-trillion-deficit-reduction
Click to expand...

No. I'm not at all confused:

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee said his party's budget proposal for 2012 would cut deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, vowing to tackle costly entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.

The proposal, set to be unveiled Tuesday, would serve as the Republicans' official response to President Obama's proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. The White House claims its plan would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ut-4-trillion-decade-ryan-says/#ixzz1SZuXnMKe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top