The Republican-controlled House will vote next week to permit the government to borrow more money to meet its obligations, a move aimed at heading off a market-rattling confrontation with President Barack Obama over the so-called debt limit.
Full details aren't settled yet, but the measure would give the government about three more months of borrowing authority beyond a deadline expected to hit as early as mid-February, No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia said Friday.
The legislation wouldn't require immediate spending cuts as earlier promised by GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner of Ohio. Instead, it's aimed at forcing the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House in debating the federal budget. It would try to do so by conditioning pay for members of Congress on passing a congressional budget measure.
The key phrase presented is the last sentence: "Instead, it's aimed at forcing the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House in debating the federal budget. It would try to do so by conditioning pay for members of Congress on passing a congressional budget measure."
The Senate so far has been the entity responsible for the lack of a budget the last four years. Good on the Republicans for finally manning up and serving it up to those responsible in a proactive way for once.
Because it is their job, and your characterization of the House is childish and ignorant. The reason Senate democrats refuse to pass a budget is because they dont want to be constrained by a budget and they dont want to make any tough choices. They are just fine with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Actually addressing the countrys financial mess would require them to make unpopular political decisions. Their unwillingness to do that is what is childish and totally self-serving.The problem is not the Senate, but the house.. and has been for the last 4 years... well since 2010. Every piece of legislation coming out of the house is basically useless, so why should the Senate even attempt to negotiate with a bunch of radical wankers that act like spoiled children.
The problem is not the Senate, but the house.. and has been for the last 4 years... well since 2010. Every piece of legislation coming out of the house is basically useless, so why should the Senate even attempt to negotiate with a bunch of radical wankers that act like spoiled children.
Oh yeah, because the US senate has done such a good job. Such maturity on their part... not even passing a budget in 3 years. Seriously, both parties are to blame and all Congress is performing poorly. The only bilateral agreements they had was on naming federal buildings after war heroes. Those were their proudest moments. And this includes the time when the democrats were in control of both chambers.
Because it is their job, and your characterization of the House is childish and ignorant. The reason Senate democrats refuse to pass a budget is because they dont want to be constrained by a budget and they dont want to make any tough choices. They are just fine with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Actually addressing the countrys financial mess would require them to make unpopular political decisions. Their unwillingness to do that is what is childish and totally self-serving.
Every penny this country spends is specifically authorized by Congress. The debt ceiling shouldn't even exist, let alone be a negotiating point, because Congress has already authorized that spending.
The debt needs to be paid down eventually and we on both just keep avoiding the issue to debate nonsense like gun control and abortions.
It as made into a law specifically in order to raise the debate about public debt every time it comes up. That it was voted on an passed automatically as a matter of course since the law existed, whatever. It is interesting to find out how Democrats felt about it when Republicans held all the cards, though. Obama himself back in '06 said it was irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling. And now his position is "give me all the power".
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.GOP official: House to vote to lift debt limit - Yahoo! News
Well, I for one am actually shocked. Why do news like this only get released at night? Also, heads should roll for this. The debt needs to be paid down eventually and we on both just keep avoiding the issue to debate nonsense like gun control and abortions.
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.
A looming debt ceiling is not an appropriate place to have that discussion. Our credit was already downgraded specifically because of the Tea Party brinksmanship on that subject.
The debt ceiling isn't authorization to spend more. It's authorization to pay back debts already incurred.
By increasing the ceiling instead of dropping from the basement. I understand what it is bro.
When is it a good time then? That's all we ever here from Dems and Pres Obama. It's never a "good time" to talk about spending cuts. That's readily apparent over the past 8 years.
And they are dead wrong for that.Every time spending cuts are brought up, the GOP's response is "can't cut defense one dollar."
Not exactly. What is important is reducing the "rate of change" of net issuance. For the U.S. to get moving toward a sustainable fiscal path, Congress has to find ways to reduce spending (year over year) in a way that is the least harmful to economic growth. Certain aspects of defense spending (troop size, i.e. payroll, the European theater), the war on drugs, international aid, etc.... Consistent economic growth in and of itself will do wonders to lower the deficit.
A spending freeze would also help
Keep spending at 2013 levels for 10 years and the budget, assuming 2-3% GDP growth on average would most likely dissappear in 10 years
Every time spending cuts are brought up, the GOP's response is "can't cut defense one dollar."
You can't freeze about 2/3 of the "budget" as it is means tested entitlements. What will happen when you freeze granny's SS/Medicare? Do her rent, utilitiy, food and medicine costs get frozen, or must she choose the "important" things and do without the others?
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.
It is a freeze on spending, which does not mean how it is spent is frozen.
Means testing could ensure those that need assistance would get it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?