• 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!

House to Vote on "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Bill

Years later. He raised taxes with a democrat majority in congress. When the GOP took over the majority we got a balanced budget through Newt.

Right. It took bush* eight years to destroy the economy, why expect Clinton to fix it right away? And the balanced budgets passed AFTER Newt resigned.
 
POLITICIANS did not start fighting for equal rights or women's suffrage until those demanding equal rights and women's suffrage began to speak loudly enough to be heard. I really hate people who try to take apart an argument based on what should have been painfully clear. I'm about 99% sure you knew exactly what I meant, but decided to split hairs for no good reason. So thanks for that. I'll keep in mind in the future that you require things spelled out in the simpliest possible terms.

So what? Of course politicians didn't fight for it until people starting demanding it. So what?


Again, you can have a budget and say it's balanced, but if your debt continues to accrue it doesn't matter. I can create a budget that includes everything but clothes and food, put those items on credit, and come out ahead in cash at the end of the money, but be negative because of credit accrual. It's a fallacy and you know it.

You can say whatever you want, but the term "balanced budget" has a specific definition.


Again, I ask you to answer my question. If the roles were reversed would you say the same thing about the dems as you're saying abou the GOP?

Yes. My politics is based on policies, not politicians. That's why I left the democrats....because they left me
 
I'm not redefining anything. You're splitting hairs over something quite easily understood to somehow manipulate the argument into making you right. Not falling for it.

The term "balanced budget" has a specific meaning. Your defining the term to suit your argument is indeed a redefinition.
 
So what? Of course politicians didn't fight for it until people starting demanding it. So what?



You can say whatever you want, but the term "balanced budget" has a specific definition.




Yes. My politics is based on policies, not politicians. That's why I left the democrats....because they left me

So that was my point. The govt. doesn't do anything until people start screaming. People started screaming for fiscal responsibility at the end of Bush's presidency. The dems had majorities from then until 2010 in both houses and did nothing. The repubs got the majority in 2010 and it becomes a priority. SOMEBODY listened to the screaming. Whether they would have done it on their own doesn't really matter. I'd be just as happy about the efforts being made by Dems (even if I disagree with their methods) if they were making any. But they're not. They're screaming for compromise and haven't put forth a completed proposal since this debate began. You can't compromise if there's only one proposal, no amendments, no plans, no ideas. Put something on the table, or stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "nananana can't hear you". They want to call out the GOP as the party of "No", but they're doing a damned good job of imitating them.

I really don't like any of the fiscal policies of the left, and though I'm pretty socially liberal, I think where fiscal issues intersect social issues we're going to see problems if we progress with liberal ideas. That said, I'm not so fixed on hating the left that I can't recognize that efforts made are efforts made. I'm not naive enough to think that either party has the interests of anybody but themselves in mind when they do what they do. None of them in a grander sense have any desire to create success amongst the voting populace. But when their hand is forced and they do it anyway I'll acknowledge it.

Maybe that's the difference. You don't care about the result, only the intent. I don't expect the intent to be honest and pure, so the result is more important to me.
 
The term "balanced budget" has a specific meaning. Your defining the term to suit your argument is indeed a redefinition.

Let me break it down for you:

I have a budget.
It includes everything except unexpected expensives.
At the end of the year, I have a budget surplus of $50.
During that year, though, I had to spend $1500 in credit for those unexpected expensives.
Even though my BUDGET led to a surplus, my EXPENDITURES lead to an overall debt.
So my $50 budgetary surplus is worthless, because my accrued debt for the same period exceeds said surplus.
That means having a surplus serves no purpose and means NOTHING for my fiscal wellbeing.
 
So that was my point. The govt. doesn't do anything until people start screaming. People started screaming for fiscal responsibility at the end of Bush's presidency.

That's because it was Reagan and GHWB who began the runup in national debt; not exactly a sign that they liked balanced budgets.

And you're just flat out wrong to say that the calls for a balanced budget started at the end of GHWB. In the 5 years BEFORE Reagan took office, there were more than 30 petitions to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment submitted to Congress by various states. Your argument would be more credible if it didn't use so many fictions.

The dems had majorities from then until 2010 in both houses and did nothing.

Another fiction. During most of the bush* admin, it was the republicans who controlled both houses AND the white house, and increased the national debt faster than anyone before them.

The repubs got the majority in 2010 and it becomes a priority.

No, they lost the presidency, and suddenly they remembered they were for balanced budgets.

SOMEBODY listened to the screaming. Whether they would have done it on their own doesn't really matter. I'd be just as happy about the efforts being made by Dems (even if I disagree with their methods) if they were making any. But they're not. They're screaming for compromise and haven't put forth a completed proposal since this debate began. You can't compromise if there's only one proposal, no amendments, no plans, no ideas. Put something on the table, or stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "nananana can't hear you". They want to call out the GOP as the party of "No", but they're doing a damned good job of imitating them.

Umm, the negotiations going on now are not over a budget; they're over raising the debt ceiling. The budget being pushed by the republicans in congress are not balanced. Obama has submitted a budget. Now, it's the Houses' responsibility, as the Constitution specifies.

So make all the personal attacks you want, but they wont obscure the many fictions you have just told.

I really don't like any of the fiscal policies of the left, and though I'm pretty socially liberal, I think where fiscal issues intersect social issues we're going to see problems if we progress with liberal ideas. That said, I'm not so fixed on hating the left that I can't recognize that efforts made are efforts made. I'm not naive enough to think that either party has the interests of anybody but themselves in mind when they do what they do. None of them in a grander sense have any desire to create success amongst the voting populace. But when their hand is forced and they do it anyway I'll acknowledge it.

Maybe that's the difference. You don't care about the result, only the intent. I don't expect the intent to be honest and pure, so the result is more important to me.

Your personal opinions and your personal attacks do not change the facts
 
Let me break it down for you:

I have a budget.
It includes everything except unexpected expensives.
At the end of the year, I have a budget surplus of $50.
During that year, though, I had to spend $1500 in credit for those unexpected expensives.
Even though my BUDGET led to a surplus, my EXPENDITURES lead to an overall debt.
So my $50 budgetary surplus is worthless, because my accrued debt for the same period exceeds said surplus.
That means having a surplus serves no purpose and means NOTHING for my fiscal wellbeing.

The govts budget doesn't work that way. For one thing, you don't have to get a majority of 534 other people to spend money
 
this measure is a total waste of ****ing time

how?

because the party in power is pledged to kill it?

no, this is a sincere statement of principled solutions to our budget mess passed by the house of represenatatives to the us senate for consideration

pooh pooh it at your pleasure

and vote it down upstairs, by all means

let miserable ms mccaskill explain her veto all next year to the show me's

but the debt ceiling debate has moved astonishingly far and fast in the last few months

why, it was just february when our poor, perplexed potus submitted to congress his budget which actually RAISED borrowing 20 additional percent

in april the party's own senate killed it---unanimously

at gwu on april 13 obama reinvented himself as the slasher

that is, his position has moved some 6 to 8 trillion dollars towards CUTS in the last 6 months

hurryup harry just a few months ago demanded that CLEAN lift of the ceiling, all recall

the mcconnell plan, now mcconnell-reid, has gone from a recommendation of T's of cuts to a now mandated 1.5T

boehner's ccb transformed over the weekend from dollar for dollar (2.4T cuts for 2.4T borrowing, enough to get thru the presidential) to 5.8T in cuts for the same 2.4

this gang of 6 proposal is out there trumpeting its sudden 3.75T in cuts

that's 3.75 TRILLION DOLLARS in reductions---to medicare, medicaid, the entitlements...

bottom line---this waste of time is saving future generations from the financing costs of some 6 to 8 tril of more immediate borrowing

and we're not done yet

watch the parties race to cut
 
Last edited:
That is all it was intended to do, to make their base think they tried

LOL!

how do you explain the president's regression from 1.6 trillion of additional debt in february to 4 to 6 trillion dollars in cuts today
 
That's because it was Reagan and GHWB who began the runup in national debt; not exactly a sign that they liked balanced budgets.

And you're just flat out wrong to say that the calls for a balanced budget started at the end of GHWB. In the 5 years BEFORE Reagan took office, there were more than 30 petitions to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment submitted to Congress by various states. Your argument would be more credible if it didn't use so many fictions.



Another fiction. During most of the bush* admin, it was the republicans who controlled both houses AND the white house, and increased the national debt faster than anyone before them.



No, they lost the presidency, and suddenly they remembered they were for balanced budgets.



Umm, the negotiations going on now are not over a budget; they're over raising the debt ceiling. The budget being pushed by the republicans in congress are not balanced. Obama has submitted a budget. Now, it's the Houses' responsibility, as the Constitution specifies.

So make all the personal attacks you want, but they wont obscure the many fictions you have just told.



Your personal opinions and your personal attacks do not change the facts

I'm not going to address the first part of your post because I'm quite sick of a circular debate where-in you choose to blatantly ignore a very obvious point for the sake of trying to prove yourself right.

As for your last sentence, I was not making a personal attack. I was making an observation. It not intended nor phrased to be an insult. If you took it that way, my apologies.
 
The only difference between them is that the dems are honest about not wanting to balance the budget.

vote obama, 2012!

dems are honest!

about not wanting to balance the budget!

LOL!
 
I'm not going to address the first part of your post because I'm quite sick of a circular debate where-in you choose to blatantly ignore a very obvious point for the sake of trying to prove yourself right.

As for your last sentence, I was not making a personal attack. I was making an observation. It not intended nor phrased to be an insult. If you took it that way, my apologies.

Your point was based on things that are not true, and saying to me that "You don't care about the result, only the intent." is most definitely a personal attack. Since coming here, I've been impressed by your ability to discuss the issues in a reasonable and civil manner. That's why I'm so disappointed that you have attacked me like that, but I do appreciate the apology

But the record shows that the rightwing has been fighting for balanced budgets for years before Reagan took office. The record also shows the republicans increasing spending, budget deficits, and national debt at a rate faster than any democrat has done. If you really want to base your conclusions on the facts, I strongly suggest that you consider these facts.
 
Debt limit in this deal is raised....



SO there is a compromise, who is the party of "no"bama?
 
The GOP Congress would rather play games and engage in political theater than address the real issues facing this country.

the real issue facing this country:

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

trying to address THAT tsunami with tax revenues is like SPITTING in an OCEAN

spin, anyone?

if something isn't done NOW to fundamentally restructure our budgets, then our PRECIOUS PROGRAMS---medicare, medicaid, social security and even state pensions---will DIE

leadership?
 
Last edited:
Your point was based on things that are not true, and saying to me that "You don't care about the result, only the intent." is most definitely a personal attack. Since coming here, I've been impressed by your ability to discuss the issues in a reasonable and civil manner. That's why I'm so disappointed that you have attacked me like that, but I do appreciate the apology

But the record shows that the rightwing has been fighting for balanced budgets for years before Reagan took office. The record also shows the republicans increasing spending, budget deficits, and national debt at a rate faster than any democrat has done. If you really want to base your conclusions on the facts, I strongly suggest that you consider these facts.

I did NOT attack you. I made a comparsion. You expressed ideas that make it appear that you are more concerned with intent. I am more concerned with results. That is a disparity, not an insult.

Aside from that, my statements were factual. Because they did not cover the entire history, but dealt only with the "here and now" hardly devalues them or discredits them. In the last 10 years you have heard little to no rumblings about reigning in spending. In 2008 we saw a massive influx of media coverage for groups and people shouting for changes in fiscal policy. That is most certainly a fact, and that is the main impetus for the GOP to have focused on SPENDING AND THE BUDGET right now, in conjunction with the debt ceiling. This debate is NOT just about raising the debt ceiling and you know it. It has been used as a foothold to broaden the debate to our fiscal policy as a whole. That, too, is a fact. During the last two years of Bush's term the dems had the majority in the legislature. That's a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact. Until 2010, they maintained a majority in the legislature, also a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact.

As I said, you are distorting the argument. I am not talking about thirty years ago. I'm talking about the reason that today's GOP is doing what it is doing. Everything I have said regarding the current situation is true. Again, I will not debate with you if you fail to take what I say as it is written. I do not double-speak, play with words, or try to hide meanings. I do not neglect facts. I focus on the very specific point I'm debating, that is, why the GOP is currently, today, in 2011..doing what they are doing in regards to spending. It is not what the GOP has done over the last 80 years.
 
And the balanced budgets passed AFTER Newt resigned.

AFTER january 6, 1999?

LOL!

when DENNIS HASTERT became speaker?

wrong again, rasputin
 
I did NOT attack you. I made a comparsion. You expressed ideas that make it appear that you are more concerned with intent. I am more concerned with results. That is a disparity, not an insult.

Aside from that, my statements were factual. Because they did not cover the entire history, but dealt only with the "here and now" hardly devalues them or discredits them. In the last 10 years you have heard little to no rumblings about reigning in spending. In 2008 we saw a massive influx of media coverage for groups and people shouting for changes in fiscal policy. That is most certainly a fact, and that is the main impetus for the GOP to have focused on SPENDING AND THE BUDGET right now, in conjunction with the debt ceiling. This debate is NOT just about raising the debt ceiling and you know it. It has been used as a foothold to broaden the debate to our fiscal policy as a whole. That, too, is a fact. During the last two years of Bush's term the dems had the majority in the legislature. That's a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact. Until 2010, they maintained a majority in the legislature, also a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact.

As I said, you are distorting the argument. I am not talking about thirty years ago. I'm talking about the reason that today's GOP is doing what it is doing. Everything I have said regarding the current situation is true. Again, I will not debate with you if you fail to take what I say as it is written. I do not double-speak, play with words, or try to hide meanings. I do not neglect facts. I focus on the very specific point I'm debating, that is, why the GOP is currently, today, in 2011..doing what they are doing in regards to spending. It is not what the GOP has done over the last 80 years.

No, you said that the public didn't push for balanced budgets until near the end of GHWB's term. That is not true. The repubs were pushing before that when, coincidentally I'm sure, we had a dem president. Once Reagan took office, the cries for a balanced budget died down while the republican presidents (Reagan and ghwb) oversaw historically high spending, budget deficits, and national debt. Then, when a dem (Clinton) took over, the rightwing repubs, coincidentally I'm sure, went back to calling for a balanced budget. And like clockwork, when a repub won the presidency (bush*) the calls for a balanced budget again died down, while the republicans went back to increasing spending, budget deficits, and national debt. Then, when a Dem won the White House, the repubs went back to calling for a balanced budget. Another coincidence I'm sure.

And the results of all this was a national debt that exploded under repub presidents while the rank and file remained silent. It's only when a dem is in the white house that the repubs whine about a balanced budget. And for all their whining, the only time in recent history when we had a balanced budget is when we had a dem president.

And your failing to cover the entire history, and restricting your info to the "here and now" most certainly does discredit and devalue your argument. There's even a name for such a tactic...it's called "cherry picking"

Todays GOP is crying about balanced budgets for the same reason they have always done so; because there's a dem in the white house.
 
Your point was based on things that are not true, and saying to me that "You don't care about the result, only the intent." is most definitely a personal attack.

for someone who, in more animated moments, calls for the hangings of greedhead right wingers, you're awful sensitive

LOL!
 
No, you said that the public didn't push for balanced budgets until near the end of GHWB's term. That is not true. The repubs were pushing before that when, coincidentally I'm sure, we had a dem president. Once Reagan took office, the cries for a balanced budget died down while the republican presidents (Reagan and ghwb) oversaw historically high spending, budget deficits, and national debt. Then, when a dem (Clinton) took over, the rightwing repubs, coincidentally I'm sure, went back to calling for a balanced budget. And like clockwork, when a repub won the presidency (bush*) the calls for a balanced budget again died down, while the republicans went back to increasing spending, budget deficits, and national debt. Then, when a Dem won the White House, the repubs went back to calling for a balanced budget. Another coincidence I'm sure.

And the results of all this was a national debt that exploded under repub presidents while the rank and file remained silent. It's only when a dem is in the white house that the repubs whine about a balanced budget. And for all their whining, the only time in recent history when we had a balanced budget is when we had a dem president.

And your failing to cover the entire history, and restricting your info to the "here and now" most certainly does discredit and devalue your argument. There's even a name for such a tactic...it's called "cherry picking"

Todays GOP is crying about balanced budgets for the same reason they have always done so; because there's a dem in the white house.

You can officially find somebody else who is willing to waste their time trying to have an honest discussion when you obviously unwilling to do so. I have clarified, re-clarified, and then re-clarified my point again...and yet you still want to act as though you don't get it. I'm over it. Your style of debate is dishonest and, quite frankly, not worth my time.
 
You can officially find somebody else who is willing to waste their time trying to have an honest discussion when you obviously unwilling to do so. I have clarified, re-clarified, and then re-clarified my point again...and yet you still want to act as though you don't get it. I'm over it. Your style of debate is dishonest and, quite frankly, not worth my time.

Here is your point

In 2008 we saw a massive influx of media coverage for groups and people shouting for changes in fiscal policy. That is most certainly a fact, and that is the main impetus for the GOP to have focused on SPENDING AND THE BUDGET right now, in conjunction with the debt ceiling. This debate is NOT just about raising the debt ceiling and you know it. It has been used as a foothold to broaden the debate to our fiscal policy as a whole. That, too, is a fact. During the last two years of Bush's term the dems had the majority in the legislature. That's a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact. Until 2010, they maintained a majority in the legislature, also a fact. They did not curb spending, also a fact.

My point, which you have failed to address, is that the republicans call for a balanced budget is nothing more than scam perpetrated by republican politicians and the media cronies whenever a dem is in the white house. If the people were truly so concerned about balanced budgets, they would not have remained silent while Reagan, GHWB, and bush* exploded spending, budget deficits, and the national debt.

The push for a balanced budget is nothing more than a political ploy (much like this latest proposal) designed to stymie a dem president. And the polls show it. According to polls, only a small minority of the american people believe that our highest priority is spending and balancing the budget.

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r0SRC9hI_Y_s

Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?
(Read list. Rotate.) Ranked.
42 Unemployment and jobs
17 Government spending
13 The federal deficit
10 Health care
5 The war in Afghanistan
4 Gas prices
3 Immigration
1 Taxes
2 Other (VOL) (specify:)
- None of these (VOL)
3 Not sure
 
Right. It took bush* eight years to destroy the economy, why expect Clinton to fix it right away? And the balanced budgets passed AFTER Newt resigned.

Nice spin except the economy went bad in 2007 after the dems took back control of the house.

By the way Obama once again shows he is a partisan hack by having a democrat only meeting. Obama once again is shutting out the GOP

Obama called Democratic leaders to the White House Wednesday for debt talks - 7/20/2011 11:56:14 AM | Newser



Also the vote last night was bi-partisan.

5 democrats voted for it 9 tea party GOP voted against it

Five Blue Dogs join GOP in vote for 'cut, cap and balance' bill - The Hill's Floor Action
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom