Cut, Cap and Balance is dead... officially.

[RedLS1GTO]

We all knew it was coming...

The Senate on Friday voted to "table," or kill, a House Republican proposal to "cut, cap and balance" the budget that Majority Leader Harry Reid called the single worst piece of legislation ever to hit the Senate floor.

The House Republican "Cut, Cap and Balance" (measure) is now over. It's done, dead," Reid said after the 51-46 vote.

With its defeat, lawmakers are still looking for a deal to cut federal spending while raising the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The Obama administration says the limit must be increased by Aug. 2 or the country could default on its loans or otherwise be forced to shut down services.

The Democratic criticism of the plan, which would require a Balanced Budget Amendment to be voted on after cutting federal spending and capping the amount Congress could increase future expenses without corresponding cuts, infuriated GOP members who say it is exactly what President Obama asked for in a debt deal.

"The Democrat-led Senate's failure to both produce a budget and pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 underscores the Democrats' irresponsible commitment to the status quo," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement after voting for the bill. "While the president and Senator Reid refuse to produce a plan to deal with our debt crisis, Republicans will keep working to meet the nation’s fiscal challenges."

"Senate Democrats have defied the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support real spending cuts, caps on future spending, and a balanced budget to create a better environment for private-sector job growth," House Speaker John Boehner said.

"Republicans are standing with the American people and, as I’ve said before, will not pass a bill that fails to cut spending by more than it increases the debt limit, restrain future spending, or that raises taxes on families and job creators," Boehner, R-Ohio, continued.

About 50 House Republican freshman associated with the Tea Party movement attended the Senate vote. They were among the drivers of the legislation in the House.

With Friday's vote over, senators quickly moved to vacate the floor. Cars were waiting outside to whisk members to airports to take flights home. Though the Senate was originally scheduled to be in session, Reid, D-Nev., noted that would not be the case and no votes would be taken before Monday afternoon.

Reid said that the session wasn't necessary because Obama and Boehner were working on a compromise measure. He said he understands the plan addresses both taxes and revenue, and therefore must originate in the House, giving the Senate no reason to work.

That deal -- built off the plan from a month ago to reduce U.S. spending by $4 trillion over 10 or 12 years --- was said to include $3 trillion in spending cuts with promises of tax reform in the next year.

The White House and speaker have vociferously denied that a deal was done. But Boehner, speaking to reporters before the Senate vote, expressed his dedication to continue, calling himself "a happy warrior" even though he denied that an agreement was at hand.

"There was no agreement, publicly, privately or nowhere," he said, adding, "It's going to be a hot weekend here in Washington, D.C."

Another person hot about the talks was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.. Speaking Friday before the Senate vote, Feinstein expressed her anger about not knowing the numbers of a deal. Feinstein, who rarely loses her cool, said she lost it on Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew on Thursday, because Lew would not say whether there was a deal at hand, even though the newspapers were reporting progress.

Feinstein said she would "venture a guess" that about 20 million people in her state benefit from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits, and they need to know what the coming cuts are.

"I represent a huge state where huge numbers of people are dependent on us," she said. "We always knew what was going on (with Presidents Bush and Clinton). None of that (information) is available to us now, and that's not good. ... It doesn't help you build a team."

Sources close to the budget talks in Washington told Fox Business Network that the emerging Obama-Boehner deal will likely incorporate a major gimmick to count more than $1 trillion in budget savings over the next decade -- winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were being wound down anyway, but by assuming the costs of the wars continue at current levels for a decade, Obama and Boehner can claim $1 trillion in savings. The headline number would also add hundreds of billions in interest savings on the so-called war savings.

Further, the deal could allow modest changes in entitlements, such as replacing the inflation measure used in Social Security, but would otherwise extract little in savings over the next 10 years from the real drivers of the long term fiscal crisis, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Senate Votes to Set Aside 'Cut, Cap and Balance' Plan Proposed by House GOP - FoxNews.com


Your turn dems. Where is your solution? I won't hold my breath...

[Will]

Watched Obama speaking in Maryland this morning.

He had the nerve to make it sound like HE was being responsible, talking in platitudes about having to operate just like a family does.

Uh, sorry Bam Bam, but a family operating like you have proposed would be a family making plans to buy 10 Lamborghinis, then changing their mind and lowering that target to only 9 Lambos, and claiming that they're being responsible.

4 Trillion in cuts OFF OF YOUR JACKED UP BASELINE isn't a "CUT" at all. It's still spending at the most outrageous levels in history.

The Cut, Cap, Balance plan is legitimate, and per CNN's own polling supported by over 60% of America.

If you're truly serious about the problem, you reign in your party and tell Reid to reconsider it in the Senate and PASS it.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Will

Uh, sorry Bam Bam, but a family operating like you have proposed would be a family making plans to buy 10 Lamborghinis, then changing their mind and lowering that target to only 9 Lambos, and claiming that they're being responsible.

4 Trillion in cuts OFF OF YOUR JACKED UP BASELINE isn't a "CUT" at all.

Of the multitude of things that the dems do that make me want to smash my face into a wall... this is without a doubt near the top of the list.

Liberal math at it's finest.

The part that is particularly ridiculous is how many people are too stupid to see what they are doing. The typical dem response... "Obama is offering cuts!!!"

No... you f*cktards. He isn't.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Will

He had the nerve to make it sound like HE was being responsible, talking in platitudes about having to operate just like a family does.

Uh, sorry Bam Bam, but a family operating like you have proposed would be a family making plans to buy 10 Lamborghinis, then changing their mind and lowering that target to only 9 Lambos, and claiming that they're being responsible.

You forgot about:

1) calling their credit card companies and demanding that their limits be raise
2) going into work and demanding that they receive a raise to cover expenses they have already committed themselves to.

[RetiredSFC 97]

God I hate these scumbags

[Joecooool]

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

and you are obviously OK with raising taxes

[Will]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

Hooray !!! Lower GDP, ZERO boost to revenue, slower decline of unemployment.


THANK YOU SO MUCH DEMOCRATS FOR REFUSING TO GIVE IN ON YOUR PURELY POLITICAL DEMAND FOR TAX HIKES, SEEING AS YOU COULD HAVE RAISED THEM YOURSELVES THE LAST 2 YEARS AND REPEATEDLY SAID DOING SO IN THIS ECONOMY WAS A BAD IDEA.

Bastards.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

Originally Posted by Will

...SEEING AS YOU COULD HAVE RAISED THEM YOURSELVES THE LAST 2 YEARS AND REPEATEDLY SAID DOING SO IN THIS ECONOMY WAS A BAD IDEA...

This is the exact question that I keep asking of the libs that I know. I have yet to get an actual answer.

So... I'll ask Joe. Why did the Democrats not push for these tax increases when (up until very recently) they had control of the House, the Senate, AND the Presidency?

The economy was already in the shitter so... IF THEY REALLY THINK IT IS THE SOLUTION, why didn't they do it when they would have had zero resistance?

[MattW]

Feinstein said she would "venture a guess" that about 20 million people in her state benefit from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits, and they need to know what the coming cuts are.

The reported population of California is just over 37 million. She's guessing more than half the residents receive some sort of payment or benefit from the Federal government?

Holy Schlitz.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Wadoka

The reported population of California is just over 37 million. She's guessing more than half the residents receive some sort of payment or benefit from the Federal government?

Holy Schlitz.

this is news to you?

[MattW]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

this is news to you?

Yep. Never would have thunk it. A much smaller fraction, sure, but not more than half!

[LATB]

Originally Posted by Wadoka

Yep. Never would have thunk it. A much smaller fraction, sure, but not more than half!

probably not far from half for the entire country

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

Then, there is no deal.

Oh, you might note, for future reference that the money collected were your Progressive (communist) objectives in this were to occur, and the tax was 100% of income, that it would 'pay' for less that three (3) days of Federal Government spending.

And the word 'spending' is the descriptive adjective of the problem - but you communists cannot understand this.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Taxes will be raised on those making more than $250K a year or there is no deal.

We will have redistribution of wealth or there is no deal! That's really what you are saying isn't it?

[Peter Pan]

When was the last Repub president that was not a Lawyer that was elected? How about the last Dem president that was not a Lawyer that was elected, on the pubs for sure it goes past Nixon as Ford took over and Nixon forward non lawyers, American's need a business man to lead our country, not no lawyer

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

We will have redistribution of wealth or there is no deal! That's really what you are saying isn't it?

That is exactly what the communists say.