Talk:Cut, Cap and Balance Act

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Harry Reid

His comment should be removed from the article. Reid has always had a outspoken personality and this comment is just him playing politics. Using these comments from the rank and file politicians should be left out. Truthsort (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the Senate Majority Leader, Reid's position on the legislation is extremely relevant, as the Act was tabled by Senate Democrats. Your logic would seem to suggest that all politicians' views on legislation should be excluded from articles, which is ridiculous. Also, edit summaries saying "who cares what harry reid thinks" aren't particularly helpful. Gobonobo ^T ^C 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, I do not mind when a party conducts a study on a bill or if there is a unified message you hear from most members of a political party. However, this comment is coming from one guy and it is a rather extravagant statement to say the least. Truthsort (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cut, Cap and Balance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721090121/http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=252763 to http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=252763

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]