No offence to anyone intended...

U

usta in Portland

Daily Driver
but have the Republicans in Congress lost their collective mind?:huh:

They are now going to floor a bill tying the debt ceiling rise to a contitutional amendment???!!! I mean whatever the philosophical value of such an amendment might be, it takes a helluva long time (like forever) to approve.
I know this is great political theater because they can claim Obama rejected 'real reform' or some such nonsense. Sheesh. Are there no adults at all left in Washington now that Gates and Bair are gone?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...LODOGC0YHQ0X01-119PBBVVRQ6H1AP34S89KANJVJ.DTL
 
No Offense Taken

Come on Pat, we know you are enamored with all things English, but when talking about issues concerning the U.S.A. it just seems that American spelling might be a better choice. Nit-picky? Yeah, I suppose, but I am funny like that.

As to the issue, yes! Yes, they have lost their collective minds and have nothing but their own personal agendas on what little mind they do have remaining.

T
 
What is it about Anglicized spellings?

What difference does it make? I'm not doing it to any purpose. It just doesn't occur to me to check.:)
 
Not quite right.

While no bill has officially been brought to the floor by the Republicans, their suggested plan ties a $2.5 billion debt limit increase to $2.5 billion in spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment passed by 2/3 of both houses of congress and sent to the states for ratification. If passed through congress, this plan would not hold up the debt ceiling increase waiting for ratification of the amendment by the states.

Obama and the sfgate know all of that, but those facts wouldn't fit the narrative.
 
Yep

+10, Jim D.

And President Barack Hussein Obama told us just this morning that 80% of Americans want higher taxes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GWdFz-iaNI"]‪Obama: "The American People Are Sold"‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Look... the guy and his cohorts have spent the last 2/12 years spending money like it's grown on trees, doing everything possible to devalue our currency and increased by 40% the debt run up by all the administrations preceding his combined.

The Republicans have been promised spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes before - by Speaker Tip O'Neill during the Reagan years and then Speaker Jim Wright during GHW Bush's term. They never materialized. Let's cut the crap and cut, cap and balance the budget as best we can... because our future - and that of future generations - depends on it.
 
Last edited:
I am intruiged by the proposal to tie federal spending to an external value, and according to the article this proposal ties the maintenance level of spending to 18% of GDP.

Of course these shameless politicians would word the amendment so as to distort the meaning of "balanced" until it meant that they could keep doing what they want, or they'd figure out how to manipulate the GDP stats, or more likely, both.

Instead of wringing his hands about how the credit markets will raise interest rates if the debt ceiling is not further ballooned, a responsible occupant of the White House should be telling us the advantages of significantly improving the nation's long-term financials that one might hope could come as the result of a balanced budget capped at a percentage of GDP.

But as everyone knows, it's very difficult to wean addicts (politicians) off of their drug of choice (spending).
 
So how does this....

equally impossible scenario differ from an actual amendment. Is it even assured that when push came to shove every Republican would vote for such an amendment? when has a Republican dominated government in this country ever done anyhting but spend beyondits means-they won't give that option up. it was Bush and a bunch of the same guys in the chambers now who set aside pay-go in the early 2000s so he could give a tax break to everyone on the grounds of an 'emergency' which lasted 10 years and counting. This amendment would have zero chance of ever being approved.

This is rank theater and nothing else and little different from Mc Connell wanting to shove the responsibility for raising the limit onto Obama so that the consequences aren't felt of not doing raising it and tarring him alone as the author of our collective insolvency.
 
I'd have to get the details, but I would be personally lobbying my state representatives/senators for passage should something like this escape DC and be sent to the several States.

Seems to me that the T.E.A. party would be on this like white on rice.
 
The 18%....

is the number around which federal revenue as a % of GDP has occilated through good and bad times and through every combination of party dominance since WW2 with the exception of the last years of the Bush Administration and the whole of Obama's where it currently sits at about 14.7% This indicates that taken into historical context the current revenues are too low and just about too low to account for half of the deficit; the other half coming from bailout, war, and stimulus spending. In other words the only truly factual thing being floated in all of the discussions over the deficit and the debt is that one number. Every thing else is just rank opinion and economic orthodoxy of one stripe or another.

I can post the chart showing the revenue / %GDP back to 1900( I think) if you are interested.
 
the repubs are just figuring out that this is a lose / lose for them.

They offer a budget cut, Obama doubles it.

They block the Pres and go with their cuts, and the public says you coulda done 2x that.

The approve the Pres' proposal, then they caved to the dems.

Lose, lose.....
 
It ain't gonna happen....

because they need 2/3 in each house and they don't have even a majority in the Senate. This is manipulative, unproductive grandstanding and nothing else. Next week they will vote and then it will be forgotten or given some symbolic lip service. Meanwhile they could be holding Obama to his $4T and 85/15 split on cuts to revenue but would rather impress everyone with their pointless,doomed and silly ideologic purity;one supposes just so Grover Norquist doesn't call them names or something.
This is Newt Gingrich 2 The movie.
 
Thanks for the offer to post:sun:

Please do.....but you said federal revenue as a % of GDP, IIRC the proprosal was to cap spending at such as such % of GDP.

In my mind there's a huge difference.
 
I'd love to see it come up for a vote.

This is something that the Average American Voter can think about, digest, and understand in the time it takes to report it on the nightly news (about 45 seconds). The simple nature of it lends itself to black-and-white, Yes or No positioning.

Something like this could easily become the central theme of the 2012 federal election cycle.
 
The Dems

shouldn't get a pass on this. Again, they've done all that they can to increase spending, lied about savings tied to ObamaCare (which they rammed down American's collective throat), have done their level best to decrease stability in the financial markets, and then they act like they didn't know this day was coming, because they think they - assisted by their lapdog media - can pin the backs of Republicans to the wall.

This president postures like he's above it all and tells Republicans not to call his bluff (he's unclear on the concept) and has put nothing on the table. He is not a serious man, never has been. He plays at being president and wouldn't know true leadership if it bit him on his narrow behind.

What the Republicans should do is work to increase the ceiling in small increments and get us through the end of 2011. Then, in election year 2012, we'll see whether Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of them are serious about real reform or not.
 
Here's an example of how serious they are

JAKE TAPPER: You’re comparing it to extending the debt ceiling to 2013. I’m not; I’m comparing it to default. Which is worse? Because the president is saying essentially he would rather have it default than have to vote on this again next year. That doesn’t make any sense.
CARNEY: He is saying that leaders should lead, and we have to do the right thing here. You can, as a piece of political analysis, have an opinion about it. The president’s position is, this is not what the United States should do –
TAPPER: I’m analyzing your own statements.
CARNEY: — and he doesn’t believe we will do it. And we think — we think we can get to an agreement that’s significant. And remember, this is all because of an arbitrary connection that was established between the amount by which Congress would have to raise the debt ceiling and the amount by which –
TAPPER: And if I was asking questions of Steele or Buck…
CARNEY: — we should — I mean, and a completely unrelated and arbitrary, political and essentially meaningless connection between the two.
TAPPER: OK, so that’s Boehner’s ultimatum, and I’ll — and I’ll ask them about that later. But I’m asking you about the president.
CARNEY: So — but Jake, let me answer the question. We do not think that that is the way that this country should operate. The president’s made it very clear.
TAPPER: What the president made clear in the meeting was that he will not –
CARNEY: Both are bad; I can’t choose which is worse for you.
TAPPER: Really? They — it — you can’t. Default might not be as bad as voting on this next year?
CARNEY: Jake, I’ve answered the question.
TAPPER: No, you guys are painting a very cataclysmic picture
CARNEY: Jake –
TAPPER: — that I’m not challenging — on how bad a default would be. I don’t understand why that is preferable –
CARNEY: Because we don’t have to get there. We’re not going to default, Jake. We’re not going to default. I think I, in the answer to two previous questions before I got to you, made clear that no one in the room thinks we’re going to default and the president and the vice president don’t think we’re going to default. So it’s a hypothetical that we don’t even have to entertain.



A tip to pressflack Jay Carney... when a reporter asks you repeatedly if national default is preferable to putting the president in an awkward political position in an election year, don’t answer “Both are bad; I can’t choose. . . .”
​
 
I agree, as would I...

Look, the only thing that made us hit the debt ceiling in the first place is the unrestrained spending. How can you justify borrowing more money without coming at least half way by matching it in spending cuts?
 
ColonelHaiku said:
shouldn't get a pass on this. Again, they've done all that they can to increase spending, lied about savings tied to ObamaCare (which they rammed down American's collective throat), have done their level best to decrease stability in the financial markets, and then they act like they didn't know this day was coming, because they think they - assisted by their lapdog media - can pin the backs of Republicans to the wall.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets talk seriously.

Are you against a nationilized healthcare program?

Because if not, then we have a serious issue.

My medical costs last year were a quarter (25%) of my GROSS income.

Wife, kids, house payment. Medical care costs are outta sight with no solution. The nationalized health care proposed (not what was passed) would have moved forward towards controlling costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top