• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry Reid: "We're going over the cliff"

and here i believed that appropriations was the house's responsibility
appears boner showed me

It ultimately is, but if the President and Senate are not agreeable to anything, making one of them put up a compromise proposal before we go over the cliff is the right thing to do IMO. We are going over either way. At this point it is just politics.
 
What you ignore is our high unemployment and the fact that our population grows every year and our money is worth less. Spending will always increase because of those factors. We have spent 10 Trillion on defense since 2000 and the budget keeps going up every year.

And you didn't read the post I replied to. We were talking about the fact that if you eliminate the increased spending from the wars and factor in inflation, the spending is still way up.
 
Well, they've done it by skirting the Constitution. They've been using spending resolutions to bypass the rules for budgeting. In essence, they haven't passed a budget in 4 years (Obama has proposed budgets, but they got a total of 1 vote in four years) and have just passed small spending resolutions that don't have the same debate and voting requirements.

You mean they've been working around a broken government that can't even agree on simple matters that in the past were considered automatic.
 
What you ignore is our high unemployment and the fact that our
population grows every year and our money is worth less. Spending will always increase because of those factors. We have spent 10 Trillion on defense since 2000 and the budget keeps going up every year.


Cut defense spending and you cut thousands of jobs.

If money is worth less then your central Bank should take steps to control that but thats not happening.
We're actually flirting with deflation, which is much worse.

Those concerned with high unemployment should have thought about it before re-electing Obama.
 
Last edited:
Cut defense spending and you cut thousands of jobs.

If money is worth less then your central Fed should take steps to control that but thats not happening.
We're actually flirting with deflation, which is much worse.

Those concerned with high unemployment should have thought about it before re-electing Obama.

There isn't much spending you can cut that won't cost jobs. And we can be certain that when spending is cut, many will point to unemployment and blame each other, some not even making the connection between the cuts and loss of jobs.
 
Actually. Everybody will be to blame. But only the people will suffer.

Harry Reid just wants to avoid taking on more responsibility. He successfully managed, for 3 years, to not pass ANY budget and effectively, not doing ANYTHING while still receiving a fat paycheck and lobby interest group money, and now he wants people to believe the it's the other guys' fault alone. And guess what, some may even believe him.

Per the Constitution, budgets can only begin in the House. As far as anything to relieve the tax burden that will hit us in January, that one's already been sent over by the Senate, and has been sitting on Boehner's desk for a couple of months, but he is afraid to bring it to the floor, due to his fear that it will go down, like plan B did, and he will end up looking like a jackass who is about to lose his Speakership.
 
There isn't much spending you can cut that won't cost
jobs. And we can be certain that when spending is cut, many will point to unemployment and blame each other, some not even making the connection between the cuts and loss of jobs.


Right now with our current adminstration you're probably correct but IF you dont address it then what happens when interest rates jump up on Treasuries because of a drop in our credit rating ?

6 points on 1 year bonds equals an extra trillion in defecit spending per year, on top of what we currently pay.

That happens and it will be the first dominoe of many and this discussion will be a moot point.
 
It was the Republicans and GW Bush that added a $trillion to the budget, taking it from 2 to 3 trilion in 8 years. Obama has had the lowest growth in spending in a generation.

Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

Your dishonesty knows no bounds

TARP was passed under a Democrat controlled Congress. TARP was supposed to be a ONE TIME expenditure. Not only that, but Obama was given HALF OF TARP funds t spend, which he promptly did. During that same fiscal year the Democrats under Obama's presidency also passed the Omnibus Spending bill as well. President Obama has been illegally spending at TARP levels of expenditures going on the 5th year. He is able to do this because Harry Reid will not pass a budget, and President Obama will not offer a responsible budget. His own party has repeatedly voted against his proposed "budgets"

You better come prepared with actual facts next time comrade. NEXT
 
You mean they've been working around a broken government that can't even agree on simple matters that in the past were considered automatic.

No, I mean they've gone so far left, even their own party won't vote for the President's budget.
 
Right now with our current adminstration you're probably correct but IF you dont address it then what happens when interest rates jump up on Treasuries because of a drop in our credit rating ?

6 points on 1 year bonds equals an extra trillion in defecit spending per year, on top of what we currently pay.

That happens and it will be the first dominoe of many and this discussion will be a moot point.

It doesn't matter who the president is. Cut spending and people lose jobs. Now, maybe that is the lessor of two evils, buts let's not pretend there is a course with no consequences, or blame whoever is president for the realities of the world we live in.
 
No, I mean they've gone so far left, even their own party won't vote for the President's budget.

All the President can do is make recommendations. The budget itself MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSE, per the Constitution of the United States. So let's take a look at what the House has passed.................... Oops, they didn't pass a budget, because they don't have one. I think they need to quit their vacation and go to work, and stop leeching off the American people.
 
Your dishonesty knows no bounds


TARP was passed under a Democrat controlled Congress. TARP was supposed to be a ONE TIME expenditure. Not only that, but Obama was given HALF OF TARP funds t spend, which he promptly did. During that same fiscal year the Democrats under Obama's presidency also passed the Omnibus Spending bill as well. President Obama has been illegally spending at TARP levels of expenditures going on the 5th year. He is able to do this because Harry Reid will not pass a budget, and President Obama will not offer a responsible budget. His own party has repeatedly voted against his proposed "budgets"

You better come prepared with actual facts next time comrade. NEXT

Lol....Iguanaman must have found that graph at " ZFACTS"....

I remember O blaming Bush for the defecit he "inherited" which half was comprised of TARP which Obama voted for.

TARP, Used to bail out banks after HUD and CRA were given regulatory control to force those banks into making sub-prime loans by Democrats.
 
Per the Constitution, budgets can only begin in the House. As far as anything to relieve the tax burden that will hit us in January, that one's already been sent over by the Senate, and has been sitting on Boehner's desk for a couple of months, but he is afraid to bring it to the floor, due to his fear that it will go down, like plan B did, and he will end up looking like a jackass who is about to lose his Speakership.

Another lie

The Republicans have offered proposals as far back as 2008. Harry Reid won't even bring them up for a vote. Remember the "Ryan Plan" that was so demonized? Yea, that was a proposed budget. It also had bipartisan support. The typical response from reactionary Collectivists was that children would die from starvation or something.

Roadmap for America

GOP assails Reid on budget punt - POLITICO.com

Republicans pounced on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s remarks Friday that Democrats won’t bring a budget up for a vote in the Senate this year, accusing him of favoring political expediency over fiscal responsibility.
 
All the President can do is make
recommendations. The budget itself MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSE, per the
Constitution of the United States. So let's take a look at what the House has passed.................... Oops, they didn't pass a budget, because they don't have one. I think they need to quit their vacation and go to work, and stop leeching off the American people.


Whats the point in sending a budget to Reid if he refuses to allow it onto the floor for a vote ?

Nice try...not really.
 
It doesn't matter who the president is. Cut spending and people lose jobs. Now, maybe that is the lessor of two evils, buts let's not pretend there is a course with no consequences, or blame whoever is president for the realities of the world we live in.

Increasing spending at the current rate is going to cost all of us our jobs. These public sector jobs cost money from the private sector. Money that would otherwise be used to invest within existing companies, or in the creation of new companies. The biggest Opportunity Cost that is put on the Private Sector is a bloated and inefficient Government that siphons away capital that otherwise would have been put to much better use in regards to actual creation of jobs.
 
All the President can do is make recommendations. The budget itself MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSE, per the Constitution of the United States. So let's take a look at what the House has passed.................... Oops, they didn't pass a budget, because they don't have one. I think they need to quit their vacation and go to work, and stop leeching off the American people.

The house has passed budgets...they passed one in April of last year and March of this year.

Timeline Of Senate Democrats
 
All the President can do is make recommendations. The budget itself MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSE, per the Constitution of the United States. So let's take a look at what the House has passed.................... Oops, they didn't pass a budget, because they don't have one. I think they need to quit their vacation and go to work, and stop leeching off the American people.

The President proposes a budget. It is introduced in the House. This is they way it has been for as long as I know. It begins the legislative process in the House, but the President usually authors it (by proxy of course).

And, yes, the Republicans have a budget:
House Republican Budget Alternative | Budget.House.Gov
House passes GOP budget with no Dem support - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Increasing spending at the current rate is going to cost all of us our jobs. These public sector jobs cost money from the private sector. Money that would otherwise be used to invest within existing companies, or in the creation of new companies. The biggest Opportunity Cost that is put on the Private Sector is a bloated and inefficient Government that siphons away capital that otherwise would have been put to much better use in regards to actual creation of jobs.
More myth than reality. Businsess only spends when people buy. Less people buying means less grwoth. Such is the way it works.
 
No, I mean they've gone so far left, even their own party won't vote for the President's budget.

Very weird way of looking at it. Nobody votes on his budget because it won't pass the House. The only budget the House has passed is a budget that would never pass the Senate or be signed by the President. It's a case of two groups yelling past each other. I'm actually being generous here in my view.
 
More myth than reality. Businsess only spends when
people buy. Less people buying means less grwoth. Such is the way it works.

Why aren't people buying then ?
 
It doesn't matter who the president is. Cut spending and people lose jobs. Now, maybe that is the lessor of two evils, buts let's not pretend there is a course with no consequences, or blame whoever is president for the realities of the world we live in.

Earth to Boo; many now have no jobs. The federal gov't naturally will have to cut jobs if it shrinks, that is how the world works. It is not in the Constitution that the federal gov't must remain the same size or grow larger, that is just Obama/Romney policy. Federal civil service jobs are not for life, they are for as long as they are needed; even the US military changes its size as required. Do you really think that the federal gov't should only get larger?
 
Why aren't people buying then ?

Many reasons, but largely becasue we have just been through a recession. Not to mention employment is still low. Labor is cheap, thus less to spend. Much of what has happened for decades has hurt the worker, thus giving him less free capital, and heavy personal debt. What conservaitves call for will largely hurt business. Individuals being fiscally responsible means less spending. A good thing but costly in terms of jobs, at least in short term. The to a better world will be painful, if we get their at all. And playing partisan silliness is to be part of the problem, not the solution.
 
Very weird way of looking at it. Nobody votes on his budget because it won't
pass the House. The only budget the House has passed is a budget that would never pass the Senate or be signed by the President. It's a case of two groups yelling past each other. I'm actually being generous here in my view.

The Senate can ammend it and send it back. Truth is the Senate has purposely been avoiding a budget because that would make them accountable as Obama breaks records on deficit spending.

Congress is supposed to debate these bills and then decide. Its how its been done for decades.

What changed ?
 
Earth to Boo; many now have no jobs. The federal gov't naturally will have to cut jobs if it shrinks, that is how the world works. It is not in the Constitution that the federal gov't must remain the same size or grow larger, that is just Obama/Romney policy. Federal civil service jobs are not for life, they are for as long as they are needed; even the US military changes its size as required. Do you really think that the federal gov't should only get larger?

Do try hard to get what I'm actually saying. I only want honesty. There may be reason to lose those jobs. But honesty demands we admit they will be lost.
 
The Senate can ammend it and send it back. Truth is the Senate has purposely been avoiding a budget because that would make them accountable as Obama breaks records on deficit spending.

Congress is supposed to debate these bills and then decide. Its how its been done for decades.

What changed ?

Sure...they could amend it and send it back. I think both the House and Senate are pretty sure or at least where each other stand. I think there's a recognition that something like the Ryan Budget would never pass the House and the amendments made to the Ryan budget in order for it to pass the Senate would never pass the house.
 
Back
Top Bottom