• 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

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
25,775
Reaction score
21,436
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
House to Vote on "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Bill | C-SPAN


Just seems like a whole bunch of political theater to me. It's not gonna pass into legislation.

But the bigger picture is that there exists a contingent within Congress that see it as their duty to fundamentally change the nature of fiscal policy in Washington. Just IMHO, the new Tea Party candidates may have over-read their "mandate" from the 2010 midterms, much as the Dems did with the healthcare law in 2009-2010.
 
Last edited:
that the House is wasting it's time on a bill that they know will not pass the Senate speaks for itself. It is not doing the nation's business, but wasting time on political posturing.
 
Big ****ing Waste of our ****ing Time.

That's what this is. It doesn't solve anything, gives political cover for the RINO's to say "See, we tried, now we have to compromise" and wouldn't SOLVE anything even IF Obama were stupid enough to sign it.
 
danarhea said:
that the House is wasting it's time on a bill that they know will not pass the Senate speaks for itself. It is not doing the nation's business, but wasting time on political posturing.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the Senate being serious and the White House being serious at this time.

:roll:
 
I'm not sure why setting spending limits and a balanced budget amendment are bad things....Many states have balance budget amendments and seem to do relatively well paying for services w/o screwing the pooch to do so.
 
MrVicchio said:
Hello.. I just pooped all over the House for wasting our time... what more do you want?
Click to expand...

A few crucifixions, a complete signed statement saying Conservatism is devil spawned, and an agreement to support all progressive theater, talking points and political hackery for the rest of your life.


Sign here in blood, thank you very much.
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not sure why setting spending limits and a balanced budget amendment are bad things....Many states have balance budget amendments and seem to do relatively well paying for services w/o screwing the pooch to do so.
Click to expand...

That's for a separate discussion. Suffice it to say that many people don't think our freedom of action should be constrained when it comes to the budget. I'm one of those people.

Balanced Budget Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But the real problem I have isn't with the balanced-budget amendment itself. It's that this measure is a total waste of ****ing time. House Repubs know that they're just purely making a statement with this. It's not going to go anywhere because its too skewed to get any bipartisan support. I mean, maybe if this was their opening offer in a negotiation, and they plan on tweaking it a bit to get more support so that it might actually pass, then maybe it'll get somewhere. But as it stands right now this is a total waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.
Click to expand...

Look, the government being ineffective and wasting a huge amount of time on something that will go nowhere isn't necessarily a bad thing. The less government does the better IMO.
 

My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's
 
MrVicchio said:
Big ****ing Waste of our ****ing Time.

That's what this is. It doesn't solve anything, gives political cover for the RINO's to say "See, we tried, now we have to compromise" and wouldn't SOLVE anything even IF Obama were stupid enough to sign it.
Click to expand...

Why is it a waste of time? It shows Obama and the democrats do not want a solution to our debt. A balanced budget would be a good start. It shows democrats do not want to be responsible with our money. It is time to cut thhem off.
 
ptif219 said:
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's
Click to expand...

Having a balanced budget is not the same thing as passing a balanced budget amendment.

There are times when running a deficit is desirable and/or necessary and being legally barred from doing so can cause problems, especially in our hugely polarized political environment.
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow, how rare. Everyone seems to be able to agree that this is a huge waste of time. We should embrace this rare moment of unity.
Click to expand...

Showing Obama and the democrats for the partisan hacks they are is not a waste of time. It is time to get rid of these SPEND,SPEND,SPEND political hacks
 

States have to operate on a balanced budget it is time for the feds.

So do you do your personal finances like this?
 
ptif219 said:
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's
Click to expand...

Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.
Click to expand...

At some point somebody was going to have to stand up and say, "Wait a minute, we can't keep doing this." I think BOTH parties recognized the situation, but the republicans took advantage of the message quickly and made it their premise. It would have been pretty hard for the democrats to make it theirs given the spending levels over the last 2.5 years while we had dem controlled houses and the presidency. Is it a little shady that the message was/is politically expedient? Absolutely. But everything that happens is spurred or disregarded on the basis of it's ability to boost popularity and insure reelection. I'm not going to focus on the hypocrisy and rather will focus on the fact that somebody finally decided we should do something.

I'm willing to bet that half of those programs, policies, or departments we all look upon so fondly were funded or created primarily out of political expediency. This idea that anybody is looking out for the "middle class" is all spin. If it helps us that's a bonus, but it isn't a requirement.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Likewise, I could ask you why deficit-spending and not raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts is a religion to Republicans all of a sudden. It goes both ways.
Click to expand...

Tell me why Obama and the democrats refuse to have a budget? This is about the Spend spend policy of Obama and the democrats with no responsibility as to how to pay down the out of control debt.

It is time they pass a budget and live within it.
 
ptif219 said:
My question is why are democrats and Obama against a balanced budget now when they praised Clinton and the GOP for it in the 90's
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference. In the 1990's, the Republican's Contract for America forged a good consensus, and Clinton signed it. Both parties worked together. People give Clinton the credit for a balanced budget, but we would never have had one without the Republicans pushing for it. I give credit to the GOP. How different it is today. the GOP wastes 2 years pushing it's social agenda, then refuses to compromise a single inch on the budget. They don't realize that they only own the House, and not the Senate or the Presidency. Their "My way or the highway" approach is going to come back and bite them very hard in the ass. This is not the Gingrich House. This is the House of bat**** insane, and they are shooting themselves in both feet at this time.
 
Last edited:

Umm...perhaps I'm missing something here but...WHY is this "cut, cap, balance" bill bad? Don't we need to raise the debt ceiling? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to cut spending? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to balance the budget? Doesn't this do this?

Jesus people, you've got a plan here that has everything in it that people want and its all of a sudden "bad"? WTH?
 
Earlier today Obama threatened he would veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill if it reaches his desk. Levin says the only problem with this is that, while he can veto the Cut and Cap part, if the Balanced Budget Amendment passes both the House and the Senate it goes to the states, not Obama. He’s got nothing to do with it.

One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things?


Tim-
 
ptif219 said:
Why is it a waste of time? It shows Obama and the democrats do not want a solution to our debt. A balanced budget would be a good start. It shows democrats do not want to be responsible with our money. It is time to cut thhem off.
Click to expand...

ptif,

It's not a serious answer to the problem. The BBA can be over ridden by congress, it doesn't actually stop spending it just says it must be a "Balanced Budget" unless Congress decides otherwise. It doesn't end spending, it doesn't DO anything really.

AND it won't pass.

Think of this like a conservative version of the ERA. Sounds great till you realize it's rather a pointless exercise.


Better would be to keep passing budgets that greatly curtail actual no **** spending across the board, and let the Senate and the WH explain why we should keep spending more then we can afford.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Umm...perhaps I'm missing something here but...WHY is this "cut, cap, balance" bill bad?
Click to expand...

It's bad because the people who wrote it and sponsored know it won't pass. It's all political theater, and a waste of ****ing time.

Don't we need to raise the debt ceiling? Doesn't this do that?
Click to expand...

No. Raising the debt ceiling, raises the debt ceiling. The people who sponsored this bill are attempting to make raising the debt ceiling contingent upon this bill being passed. Whatever their goals are, it's not going to happen anyway. It's all political showmanship.

Don't we need to cut spending? Doesn't this do that? Don't we need to balance the budget? Doesn't this do this?
Click to expand...

No, this bill mandates spending cuts, spending caps, and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution but is rather low on details as to how to get there.

Jesus people, you've got a plan here that has everything in it that people want and its all of a sudden "bad"? WTH?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just plain untrue. If you want my honest evaluation, read post #9 of this thread.
 
Last edited:

It's not as simple as you make it sound. He can certainly veto the balanced-budget part of the bill. The thing is that it has to be approved by a 2/3 supermajority anyway to be sent to the states, which is the same amount you need to override the veto anyway.

This is all irrelevant though. It's never going to reach his desk in the first place, unless some serious tweaks are made in order to garner more bipartisan support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…