• 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 GOP revolts against Boehner plan

AdamT said:
Dems didn't vote for it because it had already been revised by the administration.
Click to expand...

it sure was

LOL!

the president's only written budget in 3 years survived only TWO MONTHS

why
 
VanceMack said:
And...side note...thank GOD for republican congressmen that dont just cave on positions they believe in. Why...that trend keeps up we might actually have a legislature that is people and principle and not PARTY driven.
Click to expand...


And maybe a balanced budget someday, I am starting to hope there is an actual chance with these congressmen in the House now.
 
Objective Voice said:
But here's the difference, VanceMack: The Dems would have voted for the President's budget if he hadn't presented them with a better alternative (indirectly though it was presented), whereas the Speaker's bill was rejected out-of-hand. Just so we're clear on what really happened and why:
Taken directly from the Hill article linked above. Had you bothered to read it, you wouldn't have come back with such a lame retort. Still, let's not get it twisted.
Click to expand...

Thats comical...they voted 97-0 on the actual plan presented on a promise to vote FOR...nothing. :lamo

You guys will carry Dood Ones bucket anywhere, baby...and thats...just...sad...
 
The Prof said:
it sure was

LOL!

the president's only written budget in 3 years survived only TWO MONTHS

why
Click to expand...

Actually it was closer to nine months, but who's counting. Why? Because republicans have taken to filibusterng virtually everything. Because republicans have effectively torn up the rule book and done away with majority rule. That's why.
 
AdamT said:
Actually it was closer to nine months, but who's counting
Click to expand...

budget submitted to congress, feb 14: President Submits $3.7T Budget for FY 2012 | C-SPAN

senate votes it down, 97 to 0, may 25: President's budget sinks, 97-0 - TheHill.com

Because republicans have taken to filibusterng virtually everything
Click to expand...

and republicans were rewarded with the most house seats since 1938, most state reps and assemblies in history, 10 gubs, 6 senators...

poor president obama, he only had sixty senators for a year

Because republicans have effectively torn up the rule book
Click to expand...

the filibuster is in the "rule book"

so is senate reconciliation

Obama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reform - TheHill.com
 
Its the people that keep the real score that counts...and every thing I read says the people are sick of the crap and want a balanced approach tax cuts and spending cuts and get this thing DONE...its the teaparty thats stonewalling
 
lpast said:
Its the people that keep the real score that counts...and every thing I read says the people are sick of the crap and want a balanced approach tax cuts and spending cuts and get this thing DONE...its the teaparty thats stonewalling
Click to expand...

Really? I wasn't aware the tea party was refusing to take up two bills in the Senate for a vote.
 
Another day and the political gridlock continues. Even as Washington's political leaders are caught in a struggle, with intransigent elements all but tying their hands, the world is not failing to notice. Among those growing concerned about the political dysfunction in the U.S. is the nation's largest foreign creditor, China.

In a column today, Stephen S. Roach, Non-Executive Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia reveals:

The Chinese have long admired America’s economic dynamism. But they have lost confidence in America’s government and its dysfunctional economic stewardship. That message came through loud and clear in my recent travels to Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, and Hong Kong.

Coming so shortly on the heels of the subprime crisis, the debate over the debt ceiling and the budget deficit is the last straw. Senior Chinese officials are appalled at how the United States allows politics to trump financial stability. One high-ranking policymaker noted in mid-July, “This is truly shocking… We understand politics, but your government’s continued recklessness is astonishing.”

Following resolution of the debt ceiling issue, the U.S. will likely see at least one ratings agency downgrade its credit rating (an appropriate move, IMO). At the same time, creditors awakened to U.S. political risk will likely have a diminished appetite for U.S. securities. That diminished appetite will probably extend to corporate securities in cases where there would be high exposure to a possible significant, long-term decline in the U.S. dollar. Hence, Washington's political maneuvers may well contribute to a somewhat slower long-term macroeconomic growth trajectory. Slower growth would translate into somewhat lower tax revenues and somewhat higher expenditures than would otherwise have been the case. Hence, the nation's long-term fiscal condition will have become more challenging.

I don't believe any credible ratings agency can or should ignore that development. As noted previously, I do not believe a AAA rating for the U.S. can be rationalized considering its elevated political risk profile. Given the political dysfunction that is draining the nation's democratic system of the capacity to make sound decisions and the nation of its strategic flexibility, one cannot have complete confidence that the U.S. would be able to recognize and respond to critical issues in an effective and timely basis. That means that even if the U.S. were to adopt a credible fiscal consolidation program, there would be genuine concerns that the U.S. would not be able to sustain the program through its duration.

Actions, not political rhetoric, matter most and the U.S. will have to demonstrate through actions that it deserves a AAA rating. That healing process would take time and credibility-restoring steps will likely have to be larger than they would otherwise have been.
 
If America does enter into default, the first people not to be paid should be members of Congress.
 
You are absolutely right about that.
 
In post #60 in this thread, I stated that I don't believe any credible ratings agency can or should ignore U.S. political dysfunctionality. Hence, I do not believe a AAA rating for the U.S. can be rationalized considering its elevated political risk profile. Given the political dysfunction that is draining the nation's democratic system of the capacity to make sound decisions and the nation of its strategic flexibility, one cannot have complete confidence that the U.S. would be able to recognize and respond to critical issues in an effective and timely basis. That means that even if the U.S. were to adopt a credible fiscal consolidation program, there would be genuine concerns that the U.S. would not be able to sustain the program through its duration.

Apparently, David Beers, London-based managing director of sovereign credit ratings at Standard & Poor's is also concerned about U.S. political dysfunctionality. Bloomberg.com reported:

In an interview this week at Union Station, just blocks from the U.S. Capitol, Beers said he views the debt limit fight as a test of lawmakers’ willingness to tackle the deficit.

“For us, the issue is not the debt limit -- it’s the underlying fiscal dynamics,” said Beers, who has been rating governments for the company for 20 years. “It’s not obvious to us that this political divide that is proving so difficult to bridge is going to be any more bridgeable three months from now or six months from now or a year from now.”

U.S. Credit Rating Rests On S&P
 
Once again, the irony is breathtaking to behold. The Tea Party, to the extent that they had a platform at all, stressed that they were frustrated with Washington for straying from the Constitution. The inviolable and holy Constitution. But what is the recurring theme among Tea Pary politicians? They want to REWRITE the Constitution! And they are apparently prepared to burn the country down if they don't get their way.

"BOEHNER: Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get passed August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House."
 
Huzzah...on the 26th of July, 4 years after Harry Reid took leadership of the dem controlled senate, democrats offer a proposal! And for all the hate towards the Tea Party...they are the ones forcing both worthless parties to actually address the debt.

I dont care who offers what...if it is the correct plan it should be voted on. There should be massive cuts, a legislated path to a balanced budget, and any new taxes should be raised solely to pay down the debt.
 
AdamT said:
Once again, the irony is breathtaking to behold. The Tea Party, to the extent that they had a platform at all, stressed that they were frustrated with Washington for straying from the Constitution. The inviolable and holy Constitution. But what is the recurring theme among Tea Pary politicians? They want to REWRITE the Constitution! And they are apparently prepared to burn the country down if they don't get their way.

"BOEHNER: Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get passed August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House."
Click to expand...

When the party politicians have wrecklessly spent the country into a...what...now 15.5 trillion dolar hole...maybe its time to consider an amendment that forces responsibility. They shouldnt HAVE to...but both parties have demonstrated why it is necessary. Someday you might have children. THEY might have jobs. THEIR children are going to have to pay for congresses stupidity. You explain to them why you just sat back and encouraged the same wreckless stupidity.
 
VanceMack said:
Huzzah...on the 26th of July, 4 years after Harry Reid took leadership of the dem controlled senate, democrats offer a proposal! And for all the hate towards the Tea Party...they are the ones forcing both worthless parties to actually address the debt.

I dont care who offers what...if it is the correct plan it should be voted on. There should be massive cuts, a legislated path to a balanced budget, and any new taxes should be raised solely to pay down the debt.
Click to expand...

OMG, VanceMack!

That's exactly what the President's initially debt limit proposal would have done! $4 TRILLION in spending cuts, $1 TRILLION in revenue not by taxing anyone individually, but by closing tax loopholes. Now, I understand the uncertainty of most convervatives that any new revenues wouldn't go towards paying down the debt and, thus, reducing the deficit, but part of being good fiscal stewards is not spending more than you take it. However, that alone won't cut into the deficit. In order to have real deficit reduction, you have to pay down on your debts. But as has already been stated over and over and over again, the country is broke (for all practical purposes). Thus, the question I've asked folks over and over again has been how do you pay down your debt in a meaningful way if you don't have any additional revenue coming in?

You can cut billions from the budget each year, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions this country owes. The only way to significantly pay down the debt and reduct the deficit over time is to cut spending AND generate revenue. Otherwise, using spending cuts alone we'll never get to any level of fiscal sanity for decades! In other words, we won't be looking at just a lost decade, i.e., Japan. We'll be looking at DECADES at the rate the Tea Party and some Republicans are going in their stubborness and unwillingness to see reason.
 
danarhea said:
Saves more money than the Republican proposal. No wonder the Tea Party is pissed at the GOP.
Click to expand...

Once again, his plan takes credit for ending things that are already scheduled to end. ie: Iraq war. Those are going to go away even without his plan.

But indeed, that in a nut shell is why the Tea Party dismissed Boehner. His plan simply didn't so enough.
 
Last edited:
His plan also pretended that the Clinton era taxes had resumed whereas Obama caved in and extended the Bush era tax cuts. But yes, that is why the idiots-oops, I mean the Tea Party :roll: - are blacklisting him and his plan. The only question is whether the Reid plan can pass. If it can, I support that, but if it can't, then Boehner had better start getting support together or the US is going to be collectively gang-banged by the people who hold all our debt (basically China).
 
AdamT said:
Once again, the irony is breathtaking to behold. The Tea Party, to the extent that they had a platform at all, stressed that they were frustrated with Washington for straying from the Constitution. The inviolable and holy Constitution. But what is the recurring theme among Tea Pary politicians? They want to REWRITE the Constitution! And they are apparently prepared to burn the country down if they don't get their way.
Click to expand...

You know that amending the constitution is allowed. It is not rewriting to add something.
 
cholla said:
You know that amending the constitution is allowed. It is not rewriting to add something.
Click to expand...

Certainly. But doesn't it strike you as odd that this group has been preaching the sanctity of the Constitution, when at every turn their answer seems to be to amend the Constitution?
 
AdamT said:
Certainly. But doesn't it strike you as odd that this group has been preaching the sanctity of the Constitution, when at every turn their answer seems to be to amend the Constitution?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I think that they believe in the power of the constitution so much, that adding an amendment is the proper way to go about what they are trying to do.(Balance the budget) as you can see, congress cannot control its self on the spending, they must be forced into it.

The constitution is the only thing in this county that has a greater power than the congress, so that is the vehichle they must use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom