world

House approves debt bill; Senate rejects it

75 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

I hate politicians. They only care about getting votes and staying in power. That's why they don't want another debt limit discussion a year from now. It will get in the way of their lying to the public about what they've accomplished and what they are going to accomplish. It's more important to them to talk about what they are going to do rather than have honest debates and pass laws that will actually help people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It'll die in the senate. I've already pulled a lot of my investments back because even if they raise the debt ceiling before the 2nd the markets are still going to take a hit. My only suggestion is to fill up your car and give some instructions to your broker, nothing left to do but see where this ride takes us.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So how stubborn are the democrats? I was kinda looking forward to a economic downturn-well what is frothed about, but maybe the situation would be more dire than that.....but yk when youre at the bottom the only way is up, so was looking forward to seeing what was classed as dire.....without any wars ofcourse. So I dont think this is a very good way to think, can any body enlighten me where Im not seeing it straight.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So how stubborn are the democrats?

illsayit -- huh? Have you been following this crisis? It is the Tea Party-backed Repbulicans who have refused to compromise and brought on this crisis? They would not even follow their own leader, Boehner, who had to pull the bill just yesterday because they would not budge. How does any of that make the Democrats "stubborn"? They have already given up their demand for more revenue.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"Senate Democrats said they would scuttle it as soon as it arrived"

Maybe those Democrats will be tossed out of office in the next election.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Oh hi. Thanks. Yes I have been sorta. Yeahyeah I know the Republicans had Bush and how much he was despised, in fact, I often wondered at his tactics, but yk what, Ive been wondering lately if it isnt more to do with economics and the sort of country that uses taxes versuses a country that well is more capitalist.....So I havent come to any quick conclusion about capitalism, but figure as I stated, when youre at the bottom, up is the only way to go-provided you arent lazy and all. But countries that tax and how those governments then dtermine how that money is used has really got my bejeebers going. My silly country taxes like crazy and then gives handouts to non-locals, okay Australia, and then pulls a pity party as an excuse, and I wonder why cant I get rid of my accent so people would stop guessing Im Australian, cause I cant even get a flamin english textbook worth. but Im supposed to say its humanistic(is that a word) to be nice and offer english lessons to foreigners for free from Australian taxes. In the meantime, every capitalist like country gives hand me out english essons to the pity party group. And actually Im at the point that I dont even want to call it english anymore......So capitalism seems to me, especially if its a matter of working and scrimping, what I could handle. Thus the Republicans seem rather enticing to me. And while I wouldnt call the democrats stubborn, the ball does seem to be in their court now, thus I used the word stubborn. And it would be kinda fun to get off this economic train ride that we are on now, and get a look at the scenery

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's a glorious victory for Boehner and the Republican House. Now what do they do for an encore? There has to be more mortal wounds they can inflict on the country (to save it of course).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Maybe those Democrats will be tossed out of office in the next election.

And maybe if a frog had wings...

The Republicans in the House knew from the start there was no chance in hell the bill would pass. Boehner couldn't get the votes within his own party, and even lost a handful of them on the final vote. Meanwhile, in the Senate, at least six Republican senators, including Jim DeMint and Rand Paul, rejected the bill.

A massive waste of our nation's time in a crisis by the childish Republicans.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Maybe those Democrats will be tossed out of office in the next election.

Wonder how the TeaBParty wonderboy , Republican rep from Illinois will fare. He rants up and down about the impact of the debt on his children.

Sadly, he's about $120,000 behind in his child support payments. A typical deadbeat hypocrite. A great representative of the TeaBParty.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Republican rep from Illinois will fare. He rants up and down about the impact of the debt on his children.

That would be Representative Joe Walsh. A deadbeat who takes it out on his kids.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yeah. It's Joe Walsh's fault. He prolly has a private lear jet too.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Democrats - the party of no.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I hate politicians. They only care about getting votes and staying in power.

Not true. They also care very much about money and making sure it keeps flowing into their friend's hands, and hopefully round to themselves.

As far as I know the cut, cap and balance act proposed the largest cuts in spending. How much? About 111 billion for 2012. But here we are in 14 TRILLION in debt. That savings would amount to .8 percent of the debt, not even enough to pay the interest!

Frankly, I am appauled at both sides. Neither side is ever going to propose enough spending cuts to do jack diddly squat. And when I hear about spending cuts all I hear about is making the people suffer, but never, NEVER the grossly over-funded military. But hey, even the people won't talk about cutting the military, so I guess they have themselves to blame as well. The U.S. spends about half a trillion every year on the military, equal to the rest of the world combined, about 8 times more than China. Its like the cold war never ended!

Its not only Republicans without the testicular fortitude to make cuts there, but Democrats as well. Yeah, yeah. Welfare type programs also need some massive cuts. But to speak of those before the military??? Is America the new Sparta???

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is insane. The Senate didn't even vote on the actual bill from the House- they voted to not vote on it. So Harry Reid has accomplished nothing with regards to the debt crisis and then will not even hold a vote on the House plan. There will be no plan coming out of the Senate - there is no way Reid will be able to get more than a few Republicans to go along with his smoke and mirrors legislation of cuts that aren't cuts. He has already lost one Democrat who said he wouldn't vote for it. Meanwhile, President Obama must be off somewhere playing another round of golf. Do something Democrats instead of just saying No to everything the Republicans do!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Democrats - the party of no.

Republicans-the party of sabotage and frame.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Obama will have to interrupt prime time viewing to lecture the nation again.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Obama's birthday ba$h / fundrai$er has not been cancelled. I think we will see the supposed deadline for the end of the world as we know it pushed back to mid August.

Priorities!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Senate didn't even vote on the actual bill from the House- they voted to not vote on it.

The first one would have required a constitutional amendment to pass. That would have required a super-majority. The Senate voted not to vote, and it seems the reason they said no is because it is believed it there is no way it could have made the super majority. Therefore, it would have just wasted a helluva lot of time in the Senate, time they don't have.

Mind you, I would have liked to see that amendment passed, but the timing to try it REALLY sucked. Some say the bad timing was tactical. I am not so sure. No doubt it will be used tactically now, but I don't know if that was the real intent.

But you can see it used tactically with this "party of no" business.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

To date I think of everyone in the US media looking at the debt debate and Obama's handling of it Mark Halperin is the one who got it right.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wow, The separation between the poor and rich is growing at an exponential rate in the US and you lame miserable greedy republicans continue to cry about taxes on "the Job creators" are not going to solve anything. While profits continue to rise, nobody has hired any body since bush flushed the economy down the toilet thanks to his tax breaks (statistically the most expensive single policy change contributing to the deficit in the first place, another brilliant republican idea). Oh and lets not forget the most reprehensible excuse for a war that this country has ever been involved in. You Dip sh#@s answer me this, with out those two outstanding republican innovations. Do you think we might be a little better off right now? You people just keep talking, I know you need to hear the sound of your own voice or you feel emasculated. but we are sick to death of you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Wow, The separation between the poor and rich is growing at an exponential rate in the US

Most noticeably among blacks. Why has the Reid - Pelosi - Obama gang shafted them so badly??

While profits continue to rise, nobody has hired any body

Gosh, yeah, who could have predicted that ? It's like a bad Ayn Rand novel or something.

Oh and lets not forget the most reprehensible excuse for a war that this country has ever been involved in.

Or that Biden and Hillary voted for it and were rewarded by your hero Obama with the positions of VP and Sec of State. Obama played the anti-war crowd like a cheap ukulele. But I would wager Sshin denounced the war back in 2003.He knew with absolute certainty, the kind you proudly wear on t-shirt, we were just going to go in and steal all a da oil from Irak. And if we 'stole all their oil' surely the war was profitable,no?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Well I suppose that's one way to amend the Constitution.....heh

It's probably safe to say that the Republican leadership has been effectively castrated by the freshmen. Not too long ago McCain was the Republican candidate for President but his comments about a balanced budget amendment being "bizarre" throws him under the bus. I can't imagine anyone following the story will have much respect for Boehner anymore since it's obvious his "time to put up or shut up" approach was tossed aside by his own people. Now he's forced to sit there and try to sell legislation that he was working harder than Obama to sink.

Not to worry, though. The precedent has been set that the debt ceiling is now a political football. If there's a time when the Democrats a the minority I suspect the Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and then some. Who knew such a small group of people could hold the entire country possible?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So, Breibart, where do you stand? Do you support the Tea Party with this issue? Did you want more of a compromise?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Not to worry, though. The precedent has been set that the debt ceiling is now a political football.

Why is it so hard to explain - to the self-anointed 'reality-based' of all people - that when national debt approaches 98 percent of GDP it is time self-serving politics take a back seat to economic reality.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And if we 'stole all their oil' surely the war was profitable,no?

You simply do not understand that the war WAS profitable. Just not for the American people. People who said we would steal their oil had the right idea but the wrong method. Can't blame them for not getting all the Machiavellian maneuvers correct. But you don't need to be a genius to recognize a dirty snake. Unfortunately, not enough Americans can see through the haze of their own over-blown and misapplied patriotism, which is more like a hokey sort of gung-ho nationalism and hillbilly/cowboy pride these days.

Or that Biden and Hillary voted for it and were rewarded by your hero Obama with the positions of VP and Sec of State.

They did not "vote for it", neither war was "voted for". They gave the president full power to decide what to do and when to do it and how to do it. And THAT is a far worse crime than voting for either war anyway They totally gave away their authority. And Bush took that power and used it to bankrupt us.

As far as doing it for political favors from Obama, dang, but you really need a new tin foil hat; one that does not fit so tight.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@breit, why is this so hard to explain-the "Apple" has more cash flow than the US government today. That's economic reality.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Chewitup, in desperation:

And Bush took that power and used it to bankrupt us.

Bush Bush Bush. Fears of an economic collapse traditionally result in purchase of gold and silver and commodities by those with the means to do so. A simple comparison of where gold was when Bush left office and where it has gone since might help you.

You simply do not understand that the war WAS profitable. Just not for the American people.

Lemme guess."Hoarders"! Them terrible "hoarders" you like to talk about made "secret" profits and are now hiding da money, like they hid da stolen oil.

Unfortunately, not enough Americans can see through the haze of their own over-blown and misapplied patriotism, which is more like a hokey sort of gung-ho nationalism and hillbilly/cowboy pride these days.

Spoken like a true 'progressive', dripping with contempt for ordinary patriotic Americans.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

global

@breit, why is this so hard to explain-the "Apple" has more cash flow than the US government today. That's economic reality.

Apple - a private corporation - improving the lives of millions, makes things, and they are things that people want.

They got a better cash flow than the gubmint!

Intolerable!

if you are a "progressive."

And Apple products - get this - help countless other people who make things or provide services do what they do with greater efficiency and productivity. Crazy. If they weren't so focused on profit, investment, research, cutting edge design and brilliant marketing my inner conspiracy theorist would think their true objective is to mock our noble politicians and the 19th century world people like Harry Reid live in.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

you like to talk about made "secret" profits

The war profits and no contract bids are not a secret. People are just blind.

Bush Bush Bush

I took your accusation against congressmen and made it 2 times worse. What more do you want?

dripping with contempt for ordinary patriotic Americans.

No. I like ordinary patriotic Americans. They are just hard to find between the fakers and the people who have not got a clue what patriotism is. Sarah Palin literally drapes herself in the American flag, and nationalists cheered. Patriots cringed. And no, I am not making this about Palin. Its just an example that freak's name came up.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So I guess you won't be telling us which plan you supported, Breitbart?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So I guess you won't be telling us which plan you supported, Breitbart?

I will give a prediction: the end of the world will be postponed again. Next date - Aug 16 or so.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The fact that they were forced to add a demand for a balanced budget amendment to that bill shows how absolutely deranged House Republicans have become and how completely behoven to them the Republican Party has become. Absolutely hilarious - hours later, I'm still chuckling at it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

yabits: "And maybe if a frog had wings" 

Looks like the frog had wings already when the Democrats lost the House, yabits.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The war profits and no contract bids are not a secret. People are just blind.

@Chewitup: Take a look at Nancy Pelosi's husband's business dealings with China since she has been in office along with Sen "Babs" Boxer and her husbands connections. How is it that Pelosi', Boxer, and numerous others in both parties in Congress have managed to see their personal icomes more than triple. I am not against them making money, but I am sure that a few "no contract bids" were had by them and their associates.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SuperLib: So I guess you won't be telling us which plan you supported, Breitbart?

BreitbartVictorious: I will give a prediction: the end of the world will be postponed again. Next date - Aug 16 or so.

No problem. When you're ready to say which plan you supported you can go ahead and tell us.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No problem. When you're ready to say which plan you supported you can go ahead and tell us.

What I can tell you is I do not support false choice; sometimes hard to explain to Obama supporters.

The American public, I believe, wants better solutions.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Laguna: The fact that they were forced to add a demand for a balanced budget amendment to that bill shows how absolutely deranged House Republicans have become and how completely behoven to them the Republican Party has become.

Who do you think you are....John McCain??? heh Democrats can probably just roll tape of McCain, Boehner, and Cantor during the elections. I think they've produced quite a few quotes that can be used in ads against Tea Party candidates.

I actually feel bad for Boehner. I posted some criticism of him then read a few articles about how he was actually trying to forge a compromise. I came back here and posted one of the articles and said, "Looks like I was wrong." He really is a lame-duck Republican leader now. It's hard to believe that at one point he was offering Obama $800 billion in new revenues from tax reform. He obviously had no clue that he had absolutely no control over the fringe Republicans. Now when he sits across the table from Democrats he'll probably be asked, "Are you sure you can offer that, John? Maybe you should check with the Freshmen...or maybe we should be talking to them directly."

At the end of all this I wouldn't be surprised to see some behind-the-scenes dealings with Republicans and Democrats working together to limit the danger of the cancerous Republican fringe.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

chewitup

They did not "vote for it", neither war was "voted for".

Uh, yes, they did vote in favor of going to war against Iraq. You cannot simply change definitions of the terms every time you have been beaten or had inconsistencies in your 'arguments' exposed. Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the invasion and regime change in Iraq. Some of his critics - on the left even - call him the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war against Iraq. Obama played the 'anti-war' moveon.org morons like a cheap ukulele.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

BreitbartVictorious: What I can tell you is I do not support false choice; sometimes hard to explain to Obama supporters. The American public, I believe, wants better solutions.

Sounds good.

I'll still be here if you ever want to give your position on which plan you supported.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'll still be here if you ever want to give your position on which plan you supported.

Rand Paul's.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SuperLib, once the schadenfreude wore (somewhat) off, I've had the same feeling. Boehner seems to be of the country club Republican type - a lat, a Bush senior Republican - who I might often disagree with but always felt was loyal opposition.

You'll read in the LA Times today how California's new redistricting rules are aimed to create a more purple state - and this is for the good. When either party is in a safe district, they win the election in the primaries by pandering to their base to the maximum extent; real competition n a primary produces a more balanced, nuanced representative. One unique characteristic of America is its ceaseless mobility, but this seems to have led to a tendency for like-feathered birds to flock to the same states - i.e., the blue states are getting bluer, the red redder, and the divide wider and increasingly unbridgeable. I don't know what can be done to mitigate the situation, but it threatens to make the US ungovernable.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A simple comparison of where gold was when Bush left office and where it has gone since might help you

It should help everyone. Let's see:

Gold was around $250-$275 per oz. when Bush took office and reached a high of just above $1000 / oz during his last year in office. That's roughly a 400% rise in price. According to my calculations, the rise from $1000 to $1600 during the post-Bush years is a 60% rise.

A right-wingers using the price of gold to make a point is disingenuous anyway: Gold would plummet if the Bush tax cuts were to expire and the debt ceiling raised. Policies we see the same right-wingers oppose. They should come out and admit they're trying to destroy the value of the dollar -- anything it takes to defeat President Obama.

Oh, and that 400% rise came during a time that Bush had enacted his "strong dollar" policies with a Republican-controlled Congress.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Looks like the frog had wings already when the Democrats lost the House, yabits.

Looks like the American people didn't realize so many of the Republicans they'd be elected shouldn't be permitted to run around with sharp objects or be allowed out of the house without parental consent. All they're doing is getting in the way of the adults.

When you're dealing with poo-flinging monkeys like Joe Walsh, the last thing you want to do is to give them wings.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

He obviously had no clue that he had absolutely no control over the fringe Republicans. Now when he sits across the table from Democrats he'll probably be asked, "Are you sure you can offer that, John? Maybe you should check with the Freshmen...or maybe we should be talking to them directly."

He would not even be Mr. Speaker of the house and majority leader if not for the election of those fringe republicans. These fringe republicans who won a majority of votes in their districts which makes the charge *fringe null and void. They were duly elected on a platform of smaller Government and getting our fiscal house in order by reducing the insane spending. They did exactly what they promised their constituents they would if they were duly elected by the majority of the people of their districts. Elections have consequences and President Obama and the Democrats who's policies where soundly rejected the last election are the ones who still aren't listening to the American people.

Just engaged in name calling once again and putting those that oppose this administration and the Democrats and were elected to do just that as 'fringe' now.

*

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Americans needs to become more realistic and consider adopting a multiple party politics like most nations in Europe and Japan where bi-partisan ideology will not hider running of state. The idea of any subject can be divided into either left or right just does not provide answer to realist problems but both parties are so infatuated with the party ideology that only hardliner constituent can accept those ideas.

Isn't that the reason why less and less Americans actually go voting?

I sincerely believe that a party that actually addresses the needs of the silent majority instead of the constant bickering and negative campaigns trying to pull down the other side that does no service to majority of voters would win in the next election.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SuperLib, one other thing: Krugman hit the nail on the head in the NYT last Friday when he mentioned that the position midway between two conflicting ideas is not necessarily moderate. He gave as an example the idea of the Republicans stating that the world is flat and subsequent news reporting as "Disagreement breaks out over shape of Earth." Splitting the difference might require a "centrist" to believe the world is oval. (It is, actually, but only slightly.)

The point is that the press (aside from most paper editorials) has presented the craziness of the Tea Party as a credible alternative of what really can only be termed a right-of-center Obama. Krugman's article, several days ahead of the Boehner debacle, was prescient: requiring two votes over a year on the debt ceiling was crazy enough, but inserting the balanced budget amendment language was simply suicidal. They might as well have attached a rider regulating human sexuality. Yet most of the papers continue to treat this as a simple dual between two comparable visions.

Obama is complicit in this. It is time for the Democrats to stop compromising with crazy - and that starts by calling crazy what it is, vociferously and repeatedly.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

He would not even be Mr. Speaker of the house and majority leader if not for the election of those fringe republicans. These fringe republicans who won a majority of votes in their districts which makes the charge *fringe null and void.

Oh no it doesn't. The vast majority of the electorate in those districts didn't know they'd be getting such pigs in a poke. The thing they have done is to create tremendous opportunities for opponents to run against them in 2012. Just as Scott Brown's election foreshadowed 2010, the loss of a solid conservative seat in for the first time in many decades in Buffalo this year is a peek into 2012.

These people were not elected by a majority of people in their districts. Not with turnout rates below 40%.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The vast majority of the electorate in those districts didn't know they'd be getting such pigs in a poke.

The vast majority of the electorate in those districts didn't listen to the candidates and made an informed decision on who they would vote for? Shoot, why even have elections then.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Not only that yabits, but you'll read that Scott Brown repudiated House Republicans today and came out in support of Reid's bill.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How come it seems that no one posting responses here knows what the president can and cannot do?

He wanted the dems and repubs to work together, but they cannot.

Obama will wait for the last minute and then sign into law the extension and rise of the debt ceiling. He is allowed to do that.

Please read up on the can and cannot activities of an American President.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Not only that yabits, but you'll read that Scott Brown repudiated House Republicans today and came out in support of Reid's bill.

Scott Brown voted yes on the House bill. He also said he would vote yes on Reid's bill as long as it doesn't raise taxes and cuts spending. What he hopes for and anticipates is that the best of the house bill and the best of Reid's bill will get merged into just one bill during the next round of negotiations so that it will pass.

His exact quote:

I voted for cut, cap and balance. I voted for the Boehner bill. And I’ll vote for the Reid bill... My hope is that today they’ll probably do the posturing, Boehner will come forward, then Reid will come forward, they’ll both fail, and then they’ll finally get down to business, which is taking the best of both bills and putting them together and then passing it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

.... which is taking the best of both bills and putting them together and then passing it.

My whole point exactly: the best of both bills is Reid's bill in its entirety. Neither bill touches revenues; both cut spending in roughly equal amounts. The Democrats have already compromised to a great extent, but the Tea Partiers want more. To say that a middle between the two is an equitable place is just not so.

Prediction: Reid's bill will pass mostly unchanged; it will then be sent to the House, where all Democrats and the remaining sane Republicans will be numerous to send it to the President, who will sign it into law, and August will unfold as if nothing had happened. This is, remember, a manufactured crisis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The vast majority of the electorate in those districts didn't listen to the candidates and made an informed decision on who they would vote for?

If you add the percentage of the electorate who didn't vote with the percentage of those who voted for the opposition to Republicans, you come up with a number that represents the majority of the electorate. It simply puts the lie to the statement that "the vast majority" voted for Republicans/Tea Party.

I believe a lot of voters simply hung back wanting to see what these Tea Partiers could do. Now that we've all seen their destructive and malevolent force they'll come to be classified more as the fringe lunatic element they truly are. Holding a routine debt ceiling procedure hostage to amending the constitution? Sheer insanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If congress does nothing (goes home for a year or two) and lets the tax cuts expire you will have a balanced budget

Federal Reserve is standing on over 1 Trillion in reserve. (enough to balance the budget) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/qe2-shocker-the-whole-600_b_892621.html

Congress controls the purse strings -not the President. Even though Dictator Obama thinks he can do whatever he wants (War in Libya etc) -that is not the Law and it is not Constitutional.

You have a criminal Lib Gov that is spending beyond its' means and has been doing that for sometime. If they do not stop this no one will be debting American dollars anymore and people will move to Gold/Silver or another currency like a Swiss Franc.

People need to ask themselves: Do we really need all the (hands in the pants) TSA and all these FEMA camps. Threat Fusion centers? All this military build-up and bases. 100,000's of military contractor/mercenaries like BlackWater

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or that Biden and Hillary voted for it and

One should not overlook this classic right-wing dishonest tactic: Ignore the fact that only the Democrats and a handful of independents came out against an action later proved to be utterly foolish and wasteful, and look to a select handful of Democrats who supported a Republican president on it. It's their typical gutlessness of shirking responsibility.

We're going to see the Republicans do this again. They know they can't man up and openly support the deep cuts and changes they want to social programs, so they're going to try to convene this "bipartisan" super-committee in an attempt to provide them with the political cover their sorry asses so desperately need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boehners debt plan is only miniscule as to what really needs to be cut. Cuts need to vary over a trillion dollars ot in the billions. Entire entitlement programs either need to be privatized or abolished altogether. Harry Reids plan is just plainly worse then Boehners plan. Which is no too surprising considering Harry Reids profession is Lawyer. A lawyer can never balance a nations budget, let alone understand most fiscal matters. Most Democrats are lawyers/attorneys or political scientist and little to no business men/women. he republicans at least have some competent business men/women within their ranks.

It would be great if we STOPPED electing attorneys and lawyers as our leaders completely. Most of this nations debt was incurred in the time frame of 2006-2010 when the Democrats were in power and proposed absolutely no budget plan what so ever in that time frame. But instead went on a massive multi-trillion dollar spending spree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Entire entitlement programs either need to be privatized or abolished altogether.

LOL!! I genuinely hope the Republicans will hoist that plan of action to the very front of their strategy in 2012.

Which is no too surprising considering Harry Reids profession is Lawyer. A lawyer can never balance a nations budget, let alone understand most fiscal matters.

Tell that to Bill Clinton.

Most of this nations debt was incurred in the time frame of 2006-2010 when the Democrats were in power

LOL! The Democrats didn't regain power until January of 2009. So three full years of the 5 year period you mention were completely controlled by Republicans. Care to trip yourself up again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrats didn't regain power until January of 2009.

Oops....my bad. Correction: The Dems regained control of Congress in January of 2007, but didn't capture the White House until Jan 2009.

The nation was on a deep deficit spending curve WAY before then, however, so your point of trying to blame it all on Democrats is still wrong as ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

LOL!! I genuinely hope the Republicans will hoist that plan of action to the very front of their strategy in 2012.

Whether one likes it or not or even cares to admit, SS is unsustainable since it's first recipient Ida May Fuller whom received $22,888.92 and lived up to be 100. Try that plus more with 310 million Americans.

Tell that to Bill Clinton.

No, tell that to Newt Gingrich. The president does not balance the budget, the house speaker does. As it turns out Gingrich was the house speaker during Clintons years and passed the first balanced budget in years. And now that you mentioned Clinton, you do realize it was him whom actually started the idea that Pres Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling right? when the amendment says nothing about the debt ceiling nor is a power vested to the presidency.

LOL! The Democrats didn't regain power until January of 2009. So three full years of the 5 year period you mention were completely controlled by Republicans. Care to trip yourself up again?

The midterm elections were in 2006 and it's session began in 2007. Nancy Pelosi was elected for house speaker around the same time. So yeah I'm 100% correct on all my stated facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SS is unsustainable since it's first recipient Ida May Fuller whom received $22,888.92 and lived up to be 100. Try that plus more with 310 million Americans.

Will 310 million Americans live to be 100? Try doing some research on actuarial tables and risk pooling.

The president does not balance the budget, the house speaker does.

The budget is formed by the OMB, which falls under the executive branch.

So yeah I'm 100% correct on all my stated facts.

Selective "facts." The budget went into projected deficits in 2001, prior to 9/11, as soon as the Bush tax cuts were passed. The deficit spending by Bush went deeper every year after that. The biggest increases in discretionary federal spending since LBJ. And since the Repubs had all three branches of government from 2001 to January of 2007, they were totally responsible for the deficits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will 310 million Americans live to be 100? Try doing some research on actuarial tables and risk pooling.

Just look at the how life expectancy climbed since 1930. When SS was signed into law the life expectancy of the average American was 63. Then it climbed to 69, then 77, now its 83 and showing no signs of slowing down. Will most of the 310 million Americans live to be 100? perhaps. Now that baby boomers are starting to enter retirement, we will just have to wait and see. I would not be surprised if in 8.5 decades from now i end up to be 110 years and still kickin.

The budget is formed by the OMB, which falls under the executive branch.

OMB or the Office Management Budget is there to do just as its name implies. To manage, it over sees not creates.

But anyways, while both parties are guilty the Democrats even more so. Spending sky rocketed exponentially 2006 to 2010 and without a budget set into law. Without a budget you just have a bunch of bills with earmarks attached to them being rammed down by the govt. And in that time frame deficit climbed from $7 trillion to the $14.3 trillion of today. Of course when Bush came into office Debt was already around IMO about $1 trillion or so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then it climbed to 69, then 77, now its 83 and showing no signs of slowing down.

According to the US National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in the U.S. is 75.8 and for women it is around 80, for a combined average of just under 78. Nowhere near 83.

Also, thanks to the rise of obesity and obesity-related conditions like diabetes, the rate of increase of life expectancy has tapered down. Some are predicting a decline as more Americans are pushed from the middle-class ranks downwards towards poverty levels.

Spending sky rocketed exponentially 2006 to 2010 and without a budget set into law.

After OMB, the House is the one responsible for forming the budget. President Obama submitted the 2012 budget to Congress on February 14 of this year, and it was defeated by Congress. (Actually, by the constitution, it is the House of Representatives that has the direct responsibility for the budget.) The House has been controlled by Republicans since January. So, where's their budget?

As for the years 2006 to 2010, you are again being very selective. Here's a tally of the spending amounts from 2001 to 2010:

2001 budget submitted by Clinton: $1.9 trillion 2002 budget submitted by Bush: $2.0 trillion 2003 budget submitted by Bush: $2.2 trillion 2004 budget submitted by Bush: $2.3 trillion 2005 budget submitted by Bush: $2.4 trillion 2006 budget submitted by Bush: $2.7 trillion 2007 budget submitted by Bush: $2.8 trillion 2008 budget submitted by Bush: $2.9 trillion 2009 budget submitted by Bush: $3.1 trillion 2010 budget submitted by Obama: $3.6 trillion

As can be seen, spending steadily increased every year under Bush and the Republicans. More importantly the massively expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the budgets under Bush. President Obama has directed that spending for these wars be placed back as visible budget items.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To increase ease of reading:

2001 budget submitted by Clinton: $1.9 trillion 2002 budget submitted by Bush: $2.0 trillion 2003 budget submitted by Bush: $2.2 trillion 2004 budget submitted by Bush: $2.3 trillion 2005 budget submitted by Bush: $2.4 trillion 2006 budget submitted by Bush: $2.7 trillion 2007 budget submitted by Bush: $2.8 trillion 2008 budget submitted by Bush: $2.9 trillion 2009 budget submitted by Bush: $3.1 trillion 2010 budget submitted by Obama: $3.6 trillion
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabit, thanks for the info. Amazing!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

10th budget 3.6 trillion was due to the fact that Obama inherited the debt problem Bush created.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, thanks to the rise of obesity and obesity-related conditions like diabetes, the rate of increase of life expectancy has tapered down. Some are predicting a decline as more Americans are pushed from the middle-class ranks downwards towards poverty levels.

LOL! I actually somehow knew you would pull the Obese card on life expectancy. Your grappling at straws now. L.E is increases regardless of Obesity.Notice how i typed "average" American not the exceptions. Most Americans are not obese. When your Obese you cannot even walk on your own. The vast majority are in over all average shape.

fter OMB, the House is the one responsible for forming the budget. President Obama submitted the 2012 budget to Congress on February 14 of this year, and it was defeated by Congress. (Actually, by the constitution, it is the House of Representatives that has the direct responsibility for the budget.) The House has been controlled by Republicans since January. So, where's their budget?

The republican budget was defeated. But hey, they did propose one as opposed to the democrats whom did not even bother proposing one 2006-2010, that is going to continue to sting you. At his peak Bush spent $3.1 billion per week. Currently at his peak Obama spends $4.3 billion per week. Don't forget Mr. Obama's campaign promise of halving the deficit within his first term, instead the opposite happen.

Look, its just indefensible the democrats simply did not bother to propose or even had a budget plan which is where most of the deficit came from. Obama whom was senator around this time was also partly responsible for this. I am done with this thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More importantly the massively expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the budgets under Bush. President Obama has directed that spending for these wars be placed back as visible budget items.

Some people never miss a chance to take advantage of another person's honesty. It is just astounding that after reading something like that, google it to make sure its true, that some will still think GWB was so much better than BHO, or that the debt is BHO's baby alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2001 budget submitted by Clinton: $1.9 trillion 2002 budget submitted by Bush: $2.0 trillion 2003 budget submitted by Bush: $2.2 trillion 2004 budget submitted by Bush: $2.3 trillion 2005 budget submitted by Bush: $2.4 trillion 2006 budget submitted by Bush: $2.7 trillion 2007 budget submitted by Bush: $2.8 trillion 2008 budget submitted by Bush: $2.9 trillion 2009 budget submitted by Bush: $3.1 trillion 2010 budget submitted by Obama: $3.6 trillion

@yabits: Looking at spending for the years above: 2001: $1,863 billion 2002: $2,011 billion 2003: $2,160 billion 2004: $2,293 billion 2005: $2,472.2 billion 2006: $2,655.4 billion 2007: $2,7289 bullion 2008: $2,985 billion 2009: $3.5 trillion 2010: $3.5 trillion

It seems that in the first year of "W's" term, he still managed to stay below the buget limit set by Clinton. Looking at 2009, the first year of Obama's term he went over the budget. As a matter of fact, W's budgets were high, but somehow the spending managed to remain at budgeted projections of slightly lower, even including the cost of wars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An easier to read version of my previous post:

Looking at spending for the years above:

2001: $1,863 billion 2002: $2,011 billion 2003: $2,160 billion 2004: $2,293 billion 2005: $2,472.2 billion 2006: $2,655.4 billion 2007: $2,7289 bullion 2008: $2,985 billion 2009: $3.5 trillion 2010: $3.5 trillion
0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: They were duly elected on a platform of smaller Government and getting our fiscal house in order by reducing the insane spending.

Were they? I thought they were elected to put us into default. That seems to be the only defining factor of the Tea Party.

All of the proposals from both Democrats and Republicans had nothing but spending cuts. So you can't tell me the Tea Party was holding out for something that they already had. That doesn't define them. What defines them is their insistence on extorting policy through the debt ceiling vote, policies such as amending the constitution or repealing Obama's healthcare act or demanding yet another round of this so they can try to make even more policy changes that they can't otherwise get the votes for. That's what defines the Tea Party....their willingness to let the US default if they can't get their ideology passed into law.

And it's odd that they somehow believe that defaulting and sinking the US's credit rating is actually a workable path towards, as you call it, "getting our financial house in order." Defaulting on the debt is more like blowing up the house. You're so focused on the catchphrase that you're refusing to see the consequences of your actions. Add to that the fact that every credible analysis has said that reducing the debt will require a mixture of spending cuts and additional revenue, and it makes me believe that the Tea Party and their supporters simply do not want to live in reality so they're making one up where default is an option and taxes will never be needed. That false dream is what really defines the Tea Party more than anything else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: I'll still be here if you ever want to give your position on which plan you supported.

BreitbartVictorious: Rand Paul's.

So you require a Constitutional amendment before allowing the debt ceiling to be raised?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Defaulting on the debt is more like blowing up the house.

You might be over-reacting to the word "default". The bills are not going to get paid on time. Does not mean the U.S. government is filing Chapter 13.

I am completely open to hearing about what the exact consequence are going to be, but I don't think its going to be all that bad, and I think it might wake some people up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am completely open to hearing about what the exact consequence are going to be, but I don't think its going to be all that bad

Consider what the US pays in interest to service its debt, and the interest rate applied, which is now less than 1%. Then consider what will happen when the credit rating is lowered and interest rates rise by a few percentage points.

Currently, the US spends roughly as much on interest payments on its debt as it spends on defense. If the rate doubles or triples -- which it can easily do from its current historically low levels -- the problem escalates from daunting to horrific.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

:

Looking at spending for the years above: 1.2001: $1,863 billion 2.2002: $2,011 billion 3.2003: $2,160 billion 4.2004: $2,293 billion 5.2005: $2,472.2 billion 6.2006: $2,655.4 billion 7.2007: $2,7289 bullion 8.2008: $2,985 billion 9.2009: $3.5 trillion 10.2010: $3.5 trillion

Alphaape, thank you for the great post. By looking at these numbers, what does the trend tell you? What had happend to US economy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape, thank you for the great post. By looking at these numbers, what does the trend tell you? What had happend to US economy?

@globalwatcher: What the numbers show is an increasing trend in spending for the US Govt, which is the crux of the problem and needs to be gotten under control. People like to think that Defense spending is the key cause, Looking at 2010, Defense spending was around $800 billion. But payments to welfare ($500 billion) and Pensions (i.e. SS) ($700 billion) came to a total of $1.2 trillion.

I work in the Defense industry, and we have been experiencing serious cuts. The amount of things that we can no longer due has decreased due to the reduction of funding. Have we been able to get the job done, yes. Some of hte cuts were needed but some really do cut into how we do business. Dept of Def. has really taken hits in terms of budget reduction efforts, but I think we still have a problem with our other entitlement programs. Cuts need to be made.

I don't want to use scare tactics to try and scare the elderly about cutting their benefits, but I do believe that we can start looking at those who are receiving benefits, and finding those who shouldn't be there and start trimming there, and finding ways to reduce costs for those services.

Congress needs to become serious about reducing spending. I am not worried about savings that are supposed to come "10 years from now" I need to see them make efforts to start saving now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites