• 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!

Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

Structural changes in the formulation of laws are required, not band-aids.

A line-item veto amendment would give the President the power to slash pork, for example.

Restricting federal law to Constitutionally allowed issues is another. This doesn't require special amendments or commissions, this requires the opposition party to point out when a law violates the Constitution and it requires the people to pay attention. Imagine that, expecting Americans to start paying attention to their government once again. Clearly that idea is far too complicated and won't work, right?

Clinton already tried the line item veto. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. And as far as legalizing it by making it an amendment, it will never happen. Too many Congresscritters, on both sides of the aisle, are at the trough.
 
Last edited:
Clinton already tried the line item veto. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. And as far as legalizing it by making it an amendment, it will never happen. Too many Congresscritters, on both sides of the aisle, are at the trough.

It's not just that, it's both sides realize the danger of having the other side with the tool. I was amazed it passed in '96, and I doubt you could even get a simple bill in favor of it, much less a constitutional amendment.
 
It's not just that, it's both sides realize the danger of having the other side with the tool. I was amazed it passed in '96, and I doubt you could even get a simple bill in favor of it, much less a constitutional amendment.

Want to know what the irony is? The line item veto was found unconstitutional after a lawsuit was filed by the City of New York. I will give you 3 guesses who the mayor was at that time - Hint: He's a Republican. LOL.
 
The senate has been bought.
 
The latter. The difference is that that would be a specific deficit-cutting measure, whereas these senators opposed a commission to investigate specific deficit-cutting measures. Last I checked, there were only two ways (which the government can control) to reduce the deficit: Raise taxes or cut spending. If they are unwilling to allow a commission to even TALK about that, it logically follows that they consider a deficit to be a lesser evil than either of those other two things. That's certainly a defensible position during a recession, but in the longer term (which is what this commission is focusing on, if I understood it correctly) it's grossly irresponsible.

Why? You could vote it down if you don't like it.

So what would be the problem with the commission? Sometimes an outside perspective is helpful. :confused:

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't sound like a pretty good idea, I'm saying that I can see why people from both sides might hesitate on this. For the Republicans in particular, I don't know that I would trust the Democrats not to put together a package in such a way that would force me to make some particularly damaging votes.
 
IMO, the lack of support for a commission that would offer a potentially credible means for addressing the U.S. fiscal imbalances highlights the lack of willingness for political leaders to take difficult but necessary measures. Just this week, one saw:

- The CBO's projection of deficits running $600 billion or more per year through 2020 (assuming the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not renewed)

- New concern that Japan's debt will be downgraded from AAA and that the U.S. could follow without a credible fiscal consolidation approach

- The Senate's failure to adopt a debt commission

- "Free lunch" advocates seeking indecision by rejecting the possibility of benefit cuts on one hand and tax hikes on the other

IMO, Washington lacks the willingness to take credible fiscal consolidation measures at this time. Moreover, a non-defense, discretionary spending freeze would accomplish very little (savings would be tiny). Given Washington's lack of willingness to deal with its fiscal imbalances, the best chance for some progress might be a failure to gain consensus to renew the expiring tax cuts. Clearly, such a measure would be suboptimal, as a balance between more modest tax hikes, spending reductions, and entitlement reform would be far preferable. But in the face of inaction on an issue that poses a long-term threat to U.S. fiscal and economic vitality, even the suboptimal approach is preferable to inaction.
 
Again, I'm not saying it doesn't sound like a pretty good idea, I'm saying that I can see why people from both sides might hesitate on this. For the Republicans in particular, I don't know that I would trust the Democrats not to put together a package in such a way that would force me to make some particularly damaging votes.

Yes, but the thing is that republicans, the party of fiscal responsibility supposedly, when in control did nothing, and when not in control block doing anything in terms of the deficit.
 
Yes, but the thing is that republicans, the party of fiscal responsibility supposedly, when in control did nothing, and when not in control block doing anything in terms of the deficit.

They're not "blocking doing anything in terms of the deficit," they're opposed to doing this particular thing in terms of the deficit.

If Obama came out tonight and proposed a 10% across the board cut in everything that this panel would have looked at, I bet you'd get a majority of Republicans to support that.
 
If Obama came out tonight and proposed a 10% across the board cut in everything that this panel would have looked at, I bet you'd get a majority of Republicans to support that.

Long as it comes with a 10% across the board cut in taxes as well!:cool:
 
IMO, the lack of support for a commission that would offer a potentially credible means for addressing the U.S. fiscal imbalances highlights the lack of willingness for political leaders to take difficult but necessary measures. Just this week, one saw:

- The CBO's projection of deficits running $600 billion or more per year through 2020 (assuming the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not renewed)

- New concern that Japan's debt will be downgraded from AAA and that the U.S. could follow without a credible fiscal consolidation approach

- The Senate's failure to adopt a debt commission

- "Free lunch" advocates seeking indecision by rejecting the possibility of benefit cuts on one hand and tax hikes on the other

IMO, Washington lacks the willingness to take credible fiscal consolidation measures at this time. Moreover, a non-defense, discretionary spending freeze would accomplish very little (savings would be tiny). Given Washington's lack of willingness to deal with its fiscal imbalances, the best chance for some progress might be a failure to gain consensus to renew the expiring tax cuts. Clearly, such a measure would be suboptimal, as a balance between more modest tax hikes, spending reductions, and entitlement reform would be far preferable. But in the face of inaction on an issue that poses a long-term threat to U.S. fiscal and economic vitality, even the suboptimal approach is preferable to inaction.
damn you're articulate.

tax hikes and spending cuts, what we need. the real issue is WHO gets the tax hikes and spending cuts, as usual.
 
Wow, way too much spin on this issue...

A special commission to force votes ostensibly to cut the deficit. Hello, wake up people. Reality check, do you really think this power would remain limited to "just" long term spending issues?

Am I the only one that sees this for what it is? It is a filibuster avoidance commission. Get this through, and suddenly you would have found that "Healthcare" qualified as a long term spending issue.

Wake up people, and quit being tools. "I guess Republican's aren't interested in reducing spending" What, was that the line from the NYT? MSNBC on this? Probably both.
 
damn you're articulate.

tax hikes and spending cuts, what we need. the real issue is WHO gets the tax hikes and spending cuts, as usual.

No no no no no no no no no no. When will you lefties realize tax hikes are a NEGATIVE in almost all cases? (yes, even I will admit you can cut taxes TOO much however, we're WAY above that.)

Massive spending cuts on wasteful programs, coupled with across the board tax cuts and further targeted tax cuts to spur economic investment and growth are the solution.

Sadly, that would mean many pet projects the left believes in, and "making the rich richer" tax cuts would ensue. So ideologically I'm guessing you cannot even begin to contemplate such.
 
They're not "blocking doing anything in terms of the deficit," they're opposed to doing this particular thing in terms of the deficit.

If Obama came out tonight and proposed a 10% across the board cut in everything that this panel would have looked at, I bet you'd get a majority of Republicans to support that.

Long as it comes with a 10% across the board cut in taxes as well!:cool:

And of course here we see part of the problem with your suggestion. Since republicans have shown no willingness to cut spending, suggesting that they would support it, if only it was the right cuts rings false. They have had the chance, and did not do it.
 
No no no no no no no no no no. When will you lefties realize tax hikes are a NEGATIVE in almost all cases? (yes, even I will admit you can cut taxes TOO much however, we're WAY above that.)

Massive spending cuts on wasteful programs, coupled with across the board tax cuts and further targeted tax cuts to spur economic investment and growth are the solution.

Sadly, that would mean many pet projects the left believes in, and "making the rich richer" tax cuts would ensue. So ideologically I'm guessing you cannot even begin to contemplate such.
i'm a very tired of your veiled and not-so veiled references to my intelligence. it seems to me that we had some very good years under clinton without massive tax cuts. in the middle of 2 wars, the bush tax cuts were irresponsible.

ss is NOT a "pet project, btw, it's the only income many people have in their old age.
 
IMO, Washington lacks the willingness to take credible fiscal consolidation measures at this time. Moreover, a non-defense, discretionary spending freeze would accomplish very little (savings would be tiny). Given Washington's lack of willingness to deal with its fiscal imbalances, the best chance for some progress might be a failure to gain consensus to renew the expiring tax cuts. Clearly, such a measure would be suboptimal, as a balance between more modest tax hikes, spending reductions, and entitlement reform would be far preferable. But in the face of inaction on an issue that poses a long-term threat to U.S. fiscal and economic vitality, even the suboptimal approach is preferable to inaction.

Which is quite telling given voting demographics and the lack of debate in regards to indiscretionary spending. A sad but true reality of the situation: what is necessary to do a good job within the realm of politics (responsibility, mindful decision making, etc...) has the tendency to conflict with what assures their employment (getting votes).

How can we reduce/eliminate such conflicts of interest?
 
Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.

It doesn't matter what the bill is. If Obama is for it they are against it. Don't you know the republicans are the part of "no" now?
 
It doesn't matter what the bill is. If Obama is for it they are against it. Don't you know the republicans are the part of "no" now?

And the worst part of it is, most people won't even notice them going against their ideals since all they ever see is two "analysts" screaming at each other for five minutes on fox news.
 
the stupid president got his skinny ass slapped all over washington today, on every front, and usually by members of his own party

1. the bipartisan graham/talent commission, offshoot of the 9-11 commision, gave him an F on "stopping the spread of wmd's"

the eminent panelists reported that the administration's woeful handling of the h1n1 vaccine bodes very poorly for the govt's ability to deal with a germ or bio attack

2. obama's debt commission, flip side of his Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, centerpiece of his post massachusetts agenda, was KILLED ON THE FLOOR

3. prominent party members wrote to holder demanding to know exactly who moved mutallab before civil authorities, why security wasn't even consulted, and insisting that the wannabe bomber be returned to military milieu

4. the president's spending freeze which, after the instant death of his bank tax became the newest focus of his brand new domestic policy, was subject to immediate resistance from senators harkin, sanders, inouye, leahy, sherrod brown, cardin, kerry, murray and stabenow

a peach as low hanging as a spending freeze rendered beyond reach BY HIS OWN PARTY

ON THE EVE OF SOTU!

unbelievable

i've never seen anything like it

obama's post massachusetts reaction has been a catastrophe

it was best encapsuled by gibbs on fns, who said of MA---"more people voted to express their support of barack obama than to oppose him"

the stupidest press secty went on to "hope scott brown doesn't misread the electorate" the way those do who actually thought the pickup driving populist WON

Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Two Senate Democrats want KSM trial out of NYC - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com

Obama Spending Freeze Lands on Hill with Thud - The Note

Sir you have got to be the worst partisan hack I have ever seen on any political site bar none. And the double spacing is just as redundant. It's time to ignore your posts. There's just nothing there except Obama bad, liberals bad, democrats bad, blah blah blah. BORING!
 
And the worst part of it is, most people won't even notice them going against their ideals since all they ever see is two "analysts" screaming at each other for five minutes on fox news.

Tell me about it. I had someone I lost contact with recently call me that is so backword he refuses to use a computer because it's "bad" and has post it notes all over the place in his place of business. He screws up orders left and right because he's so disorganized, and the silly post it notes everywhere don't help. Anyway, we got to talking about the economy and he asked me if I listened to Glen Beck. I said, "no he's a crack pot as far as I'm concerned." He told me to give him another chance as Glen is "spot on." :shock:

What's really sad is this guy used to be a college professor and he listens to that crap and eats it up!
 
i'm a very tired of your veiled and not-so veiled references to my intelligence. it seems to me that we had some very good years under clinton without massive tax cuts. in the middle of 2 wars, the bush tax cuts were irresponsible.

ss is NOT a "pet project, btw, it's the only income many people have in their old age.

Wait, irresponsible?

You do realize that Bush Tax Revenues were record breaking don't you?
 
Which is quite telling given voting demographics and the lack of debate in regards to indiscretionary spending. A sad but true reality of the situation: what is necessary to do a good job within the realm of politics (responsibility, mindful decision making, etc...) has the tendency to conflict with what assures their employment (getting votes).

How can we reduce/eliminate such conflicts of interest?

We can't. The only way we can turn them around is via an economic crash which sadly I think is in our future. We will then have to start from scratch, and probably just like the Great Depression did, it will make people and their congress critters much more frugal. Hopefully we will vote all of them out too.
 
Wait, irresponsible?

You do realize that Bush Tax Revenues were record breaking don't you?
as were his deficits. and as a percentage of our economy, no, the revenues were not record breaking.
 
as were his deficits. and as a percentage of our economy, no, the revenues were not record breaking.

An old wise man once said: "its not important how much you make, but how much you keep."
 
Well, I guess that this proves that Republicans love deficits. After all, that's what this was about, wasn't it? A pro-deficit versus anti-deficit vote? Because it's all about politics... and voting in favor of deficits is great politics :roll:

As has already been mentioned, votes correlated more closely with time in office than with party. There's more to this than the surface, as is almost always the case. But don't let that stop you from bashing the Republicans as the pro-deficit party....
 
Back
Top Bottom