• 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 votes to abandon budget control act

Arbo

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate Votes to Abandon Budget Control Act | Power Line

Last summer, Republicans in Congress agreed to increase the federal debt limit in exchange for the Democrats’ pledge to cap future spending at agreed-upon levels. The compromise was embodied in the Budget Control Act; discretionary spending was to increase by no more than $7 billion in the current fiscal year. I wrote yesterday about the fact that the Democrats intended to violate the Budget Control Act by increasing deficit spending on the Post Office by $34 billion. The measure probably would have glided through the Senate without notice had Jeff Sessions not challenged it. Sessions insisted on a point of order, based on the fact that the spending bill violated the Budget Control Act. It required 60 votes to waive Sessions’ point of order and toss the BCA on the trash heap.

Today the Senate voted 62-37 to do exactly that. This means that the consideration that Republicans obtained in exchange for increasing the debt limit is gone. Moreover, some Republicans–I haven’t yet seen the list–voted with the Democrats today.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone with a brain knew this was going to happen back when they made the 'agreement'.
 
Billy the Kid said:
This is a prime example as to why we need term limits.
Click to expand...

No. It's a prime example of why we need a full-scale housecleaning of the Federal Government.... A nice napalm enema ought to do the trick.
 
That crushes the "down the road" spending cuts talking point we always hear about from Dems. If they violate the agreement that is the basis for the spending cuts--eliminating them, there are no spending cuts and all that happened is the tax increases that got passed just get spent.

That is the fundamental reason why there should not ever be tax increases unless and until we see true, real spending cuts----not down the road but NOW.
This is the reason why so many here are against tax increases, not because they are mean or unfair but they know congress is not serious about spending cuts. They are serious about spending. That has to change.
 
Well said... and this is far from the first time that (D)'s have done this. They have promised cuts in the past, and they always go back on their word. Same **** over and over.
 
Arbo said:
Well said... and this is far from the first time that (D)'s have done this. They have promised cuts in the past, and they always go back on their word. Same **** over and over.
Click to expand...

Who is more to blame, the Dem's doing it or the reps that made the deal with Dem's knowing full well they would do it. It's a rhetorical question.
 
So basically, SSDD?? I'm not particularly surprised by this, but I'm deeply sadden that we're still not taking our spending addiction seriously. All of the hoopla and pomp over spending and we're still acting like a spoiled 15 year old with daddy's Amex Black.
 
Jetboogieman said:
As I recall Congress people have term limits.

They're called elections.
Click to expand...

High voter disapproval rate and high incumbent reelection rates says that elections fail miserably as a form for term limit.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Who is more to blame, the Dem's doing it or the reps that made the deal with Dem's knowing full well they would do it. It's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Oh, those that made the deal, not learning from the numerous times in the past the (D)'s went back on their word and spending cuts never came, should have known better, that's for damn sure. If they do it again, they are just as much to blame as those that do not cut spending.
 
Paschendale said:
Not that we can ever agree on what needs cutting...
Click to expand...

We have a very simple means of dealing with that issue, if people would simply use it..... Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution; as written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the states. The Section has not been Amended by any means since the writing of the document and the only other part of the Constitution that expressly deals with the issue is the Tenth Amendment which notes that anything not listed there is a power of the States and the People, not the Federal Government.
 
Arbo said:
Senate Votes to Abandon Budget Control Act | Power Line

Well, anyone with a brain knew this was going to happen back when they made the 'agreement'.
Click to expand...

As I've said numerous times...

When you compromise on something that happens IMMEDIETELY in exchange for something that MIGHT happen in the future unless you have reasonable expectation the other side will make good with their end, you're likely acting foolishly and it would be understandable if you refuse such a compromise unless.

That goes for both sides too, Democrats or Republicans.

However, this is a perfect example of why...when people currently are bitching that Republicans refuse to compromise...so many on the right don't WANT to compromise right now. Many of the compromises offered up during the Obama administration have been instances where something has happened IMMEDIETELY or will happen over a length of time but is the type of thing that is traditionally EXTREMELY difficult to end once it's begun....and in exchange there's promises of something multiple years down the line, that can has historically been easy to overturn, and is basically dependent on future politicians to abide by.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Who is more to blame, the Dem's doing it or the reps that made the deal with Dem's knowing full well they would do it. It's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

The GOP can block any bill they choose to block right now. "The Dem's doing it" is inaccurate. It's both parties.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That crushes the "down the road" spending cuts talking point we always hear about from Dems. If they violate the agreement that is the basis for the spending cuts--eliminating them, there are no spending cuts and all that happened is the tax increases that got passed just get spent.

That is the fundamental reason why there should not ever be tax increases unless and until we see true, real spending cuts----not down the road but NOW.
This is the reason why so many here are against tax increases, not because they are mean or unfair but they know congress is not serious about spending cuts. They are serious about spending. That has to change.
Click to expand...

It's been that way for more than thirty years now. When do you foresee it changing?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
As I've said numerous times...

When you compromise on something that happens IMMEDIETELY in exchange for something that MIGHT happen in the future unless you have reasonable expectation the other side will make good with their end, you're likely acting foolishly and it would be understandable if you refuse such a compromise unless.

That goes for both sides too, Democrats or Republicans.

However, this is a perfect example of why...when people currently are bitching that Republicans refuse to compromise...so many on the right don't WANT to compromise right now. Many of the compromises offered up during the Obama administration have been instances where something has happened IMMEDIETELY or will happen over a length of time but is the type of thing that is traditionally EXTREMELY difficult to end once it's begun....and in exchange there's promises of something multiple years down the line, that can has historically been easy to overturn, and is basically dependent on future politicians to abide by.
Click to expand...

Why are you laying the blame on Democrats for this? The Republicans are in a conspiracy with the Democrats, the Republican politicians knew full well this would happen but did all the song and dance anyways pretending to be principled. In fact this is exactly what the Republican globalist politicians were planning on all along; in a conspiracy with the Democrat globalist politicians.

Deuce said:
The GOP can block any bill they choose to block right now. "The Dem's doing it" is inaccurate. It's both parties.
Click to expand...

When are you numbskulls going to realize there is a 1-party system ruling the country, on all the important issues (including deficit spending), they all do exactly the same thing, hell even the Libertarians and Greens would be doing the exact same thing (deficit spending) if they actually had any power, so this conspiracy also has control over the alternatives, pretty thorough if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
As I recall Congress people have term limits.

They're called elections.
Click to expand...


I still say we need term limits. Just like the POTUS can only serve 2 terms, our representatives should be under the same gun. 2 terms and your out.

That way we won't have to deal with "represntative lifers", who wield to much power. This shouldn't be a career, it should be a calling to actuallty bring in new ideas. Maybe then "they'd" learn to work with others represntatives to make real changes, not just talk the change talk and do nothing.
 
Jetboogieman said:
As I recall Congress people have term limits.

They're called elections.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's often used as the reason we don't need them. The power of encumbancy is so strong that getting a sitting Congressman voted out of office is a very difficult thing to do. It shouldn't be. Eight years and out. Then, maybe in their 7th and 8th years they'd actually vote in the best interests of the American people instead of their own.
 
Matt Foley said:
Yeah, told you so.



another non-solution.

The real solution is to create a new political party but you're all too lazy for that.
Click to expand...



I'd love to see the fight that would insue when the platform committee gets together for this 3rd Party.

I don't much like the 2 parties we have now, but throwing in another party would, IMO, sink the country.

We have a workable system. What we need are people who are willing to give 8-12 years, knowing they're out after, to make some tough decisions. They won't have to worry about "buying votes", like we have as part of our current system. They'd be able to look at the future of the country and not their future in politics. JMO
 
Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress will never fiscally police itself. With a law in place at least the special interest groups will have another obstacle in their way. :shock:
 
Blue Dog said:
Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress will never fiscally police itself. With a law in place at least the special interest groups will have another obstacle in their way. :shock:
Click to expand...

Sorry Ive got to punch holes in that. California has a balanced budget ammendment. Its not worth the paper its printed on if the governing body in question just borrows its way around the ammendment---which California certainly did.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sorry Ive got to punch holes in that. California has a balanced budget ammendment. Its not worth the paper its printed on if the governing body in question just borrows its way around the ammendment---which California certainly did.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Unless we prohibit borrowing as part of the BBA.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
Sorry Ive got to punch holes in that. California has a balanced budget ammendment. Its not worth the paper its printed on if the governing body in question just borrows its way around the ammendment---which California certainly did.
Click to expand...

Which is why any such document should not be written as solely a spending plan. My suggestion has always been that any such amendment needs to cap spending at 90% of the expected income for the state in the next fiscal year. If the anticipated income is $100 Million, the budget cannot exceed $90 Million. Any monies in excess of that $90 Million that are collected would be put in a fund for emergency expenses (national disaster, war spending, etc....) and could only be touched with a 75% majority vote of both Houses of Congress and the signature of the POTUS and at least 5 members of the SCOTUS.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I'd love to see the fight that would insue when the platform committee gets together for this 3rd Party.

I don't much like the 2 parties we have now, but throwing in another party would, IMO, sink the country.
Click to expand...

So how would creating a new place for citizens to "peaceably assemble", away from the morally corrupt and conspiring 4 largest political parties that exist now, sink the country exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom