No it will show the dems and Obama only care about raising the ceiling. The dems and Obama do not want a balanced budget. The proof is they have been lack in their duties for there has been no budget passed since Obama was elected.
The repubs don't care about balancing the budget. If they cared, they would have balanced the budget when they controlled the House, the senate and the white house. Instead, they wiped out the surplus and racked up record levels of debt.
The only difference between them is that the dems are honest about not wanting to balance the budget.
Yep, the GOP's bill worked as long as you are still happy with them. Now you won't blame them when they compromise with the Dems because they convinced you they gave it their best shot. And to think some thought it was a waste of time! :sun
Since when has American society become so acceptable of mediocrity? Personally, I would prefer politicians actually come up with good ideas rather than just coming up with crap like this and calling it a day.
The idea of capping and balancing the budget is bad for a multitude of reasons. Here is a short list I made off the top of my head:
-GDP for any given year can constantly be revised. What happens in a situation when the GDP is assumed to be X for the fiscal year, but it is actually less than what is predicted? How do you account for that overspending in future budgets?
-Add to that data for GDP lags by a year, so in order to enforce the spending cap Congress will most likely have to use the previous year's GDP. This will artificially lower the cap.
-There is no measure in this bill to override the balanced budget in times of recessions. When revenue will naturally fall, government spending will likewise have to fall. This has the potential to make the impact of future recessions much worse than they otherwise could be.
-Adding to my second point it takes away the government's ability to replace any declines in consumer demand during recessions.
-Sometimes running a deficit can be beneficial to long-term economic growth. The United States has practiced this since the days of Alexander Hamilton.
It will not pass because it is an ideologically driven bill. Maybe when Republicans figure out that they only control one half of one branch of government and write a bill that is capable of passing in the other chamber of Congress, then we can have a serious discussion about the worthiness of a given bill.
To clarify one of your earlier posts the passage of this bill does not mean that a rise in debt ceiling is a certainty. Under Title III of the bill the only condition under which the debt ceiling is raised is if both chambers of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. Anyone who follows politics knows full well there are not 290 votes in the House and there are definitely not 67 votes necessary in the Senate. So, technically, it is possible that a spending cap could be passed without a corresponding rise in the debt ceiling. That is yet another reason why this bill is a joke.
I think everybody but the freshman Republicans understand that what they want to do will not pass. This is more or less an opportunity for Republicans leaders in the House to give the appearance that they are trying to appease the demands of the Tea Party, but were otherwise unsuccessful.
So far the only Republicans that have made anything that looks remotely like a Plan B are Senate Republicans with Mitch McConnell's plan. John Boehner and other House Republican leaders have stated that passage of that bill in the House would be almost impossible and that Boehner would need to rely heavily on Democrats to ensure that it would pass.
Right now, from my perspective, House Republicans have no backup plan if this bill fails in the Senate or the President vetoes it. I think they feel that they can win the PR battle against the President and avoid having the American people blame them for the potential economic disaster that could follow if the debt ceiling is not raised.
Yes, I have read the bill. Indeed, StillBallin75 is right that the bill lacks details about specific cuts that have to be made. All this bill does is set spending limits for next year's budget, but in no way says what those cuts will be in order to meet the spending limits that the bill calls for.
Here is a link to the bill so you can examine it yourself:Read The Bill: H.R. 2560 - GovTrack.us
I will come out and say that I would have no problem completely doing away with the debt ceiling. I find it senseless that Congress has the ability to pass spending bills and yet does not have to ensure that the Executive Branch has the means necessary to pay the bills that both branches agreed to.
The repubs don't care about balancing the budget. If they cared, they would have balanced the budget when they controlled the House, the senate and the white house. Instead, they wiped out the surplus and racked up record levels of debt.
The only difference between them is that the dems are honest about not wanting to balance the budget.
i agree with you on this. the republicans are simply trying to discredit obama at this point.
Wrong the GOP congress under Clinton did balance the budget.
911 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq stopped the balance. I do not believe there was a surplus.
If it worked under Clinton why is Obama against it now?
The repubs don't care about balancing the budget. If they cared, they would have balanced the budget when they controlled the House, the senate and the white house. Instead, they wiped out the surplus and racked up record levels of debt.
The only difference between them is that the dems are honest about not wanting to balance the budget.
The GOP Congress would rather play games and engage in political theater than address the real issues facing this country. Thankfully the vast majority of America sees right through their gamesmanship.
The repub congress had nothing to do with balancing the budget. Every budget the republicans in congress proposed had greater deficits than the ones Clinton proposed. The repubs showed their hatred of balanced budgets by destroying the surplus Clinton handed off to them with runaway spending passed by a republican house and senate, and signed by a republican president
If you want republican policies to guide the nation, you have to vote for a democrat
The repub congress had nothing to do with balancing the budget. Every budget the republicans in congress proposed had greater deficits than the ones Clinton proposed. The repubs showed their hatred of balanced budgets by destroying the surplus Clinton handed off to them with runaway spending passed by a republican house and senate, and signed by a republican president
If you want republican policies to guide the nation, you have to vote for a democrat
This is a silly argument. That's like saying if politicians really cared about women's suffrage they wouldn't have waited until the 1900s, or if they really cared about equal rights they wouldn't have waited until the 1950s/60s.. Sometimes you need a wake up call to realize there's a massive stinking problem.
Wrong the GOP dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
I don't think you can call it a real surplus when the debt continues to increase during that same period. That's like my bragging that I have 2k in savings when I owe 4k on my credit card and then increase the balance by another 3k.
Wrong. Clinton dragged the GOP kicking and screaming to a balanced budget
Now that is a ridiculous argument. People who want a balanced budget do not do the exact opposite. Before women won the right to vote, the people who supported womans' suffrage fought for womans' suffarage; they didn't oppose it.
Then you don't know what a budget surplus is. Even with a balanced budget, there are off budget obligations.
Then explain why it did not happen when Clinton raised taxes and had the democrat majority in congress
I'd love for you to post links to any statement, declaration, or summary of issues which states in any way, via any means, that the GOP directly opposed responsible spending.
Further, I don't think it would matter even if there were (and there isn't). People didn't fight for civil rights or woman's suffrage until the people demanding those things stood up and started fighting for it. This has actually played out in much the same way. The people started screamingly for responsibility and fiscal restraint and the politicians listened....all of them, both sides of the aisle.
So the GOP makes waves about it, creates multiple proposals...and the dems scream about compromise. And somehow, because neither party took it seriously before, it's now impossible for the GOP to take it seriously? Would you be saying the same thing if roles were reversed and it were the dems putting forth multiple proposals that the GOP flatly ignored?
I know what a budget surplus is. I'm saying when your debt continues to accrue above and beyond any budgetary surplus there is not a legitimate surplus of funds, hence no "real" surplus existed. It's all smoke and mirrors. It matters for nothing.
It did happen after Clinton raised taxes.
Actions speak louder than words. I agree that the repubs SAY that they're for a balanced budget, but their actions prove they are lying
'
"People didn't fight for it until people began fighting for it" is a tautology.
Umm, Clinton campaigned on balancing the budget too. The difference between him and the repubs is that he did what he said he would do.
Actions speak louder than words. I agree that the repubs SAY that they're for a balanced budget, but their actions prove they are lying
'
"People didn't fight for it until people began fighting for it" is a tautology.
Umm, Clinton campaigned on balancing the budget too. The difference between him and the repubs is that he did what he said he would do.
No, a budget surplus is a budget surplus. You can't redefine the term simply because it contradicts your argument.
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?