18 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyIf the plan is to gradually reduce the deficit, then they are also in favour of raising the debt limit, are they not?
The plan is summarized here . . .
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Cut_Cap_Balance_Act_Summary-FAQ--07-15-11.pdf
They're not going for it all at once. The plan is to gradually reduce govt spending as a percentage of GDP between 2012 and 2021.
I heard some talking head say they're voting on it Tuesday.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyHow can any serious proposal contain this clause:
The plan is summarized here . . .
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Cut_Cap_Balance_Act_Summary-FAQ--07-15-11.pdf
They're not going for it all at once. The plan is to gradually reduce govt spending as a percentage of GDP between 2012 and 2021.
I heard some talking head say they're voting on it Tuesday.
Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation’s debt limit.
(Emphasis in Original)
Perhaps TP types are unaware (most have only a faint knowledge of the Constitution) that a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in each House AND approval by 3/4 of the States. Attaching such a provision is supporting an allowance of default. Sure, it generously allows the President to request a debt ceiling increase IF a BBA is passed by Congress and sent to the States (something he can do anyway), but it doesn't commit the Republicans to actually vote for one.
Of course, the proposal itself provides zero details on how spending cuts are to be achieved merely giving a maximum of GNP that spending can be.
In short, the proposal is a political stunt and a joke. If the Republicans in the House want a Balanced Budget, pass one.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyYou are correct, sir.
There is only one thing to do. We must tax and spend our way back into good economic health.
In fact, Obama's wife said that he talks in his sleep and can often be heard saying, "Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend".
Then all the jobs will magically appear at your door step.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderUnfortunately, this is true.
How can any serious proposal contain this clause:
Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment [b]before raising the nation’s debt limit.
(Emphasis in Original)
Perhaps TP types are unaware (most have only a faint knowledge of the Constitution) that a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in each Ho ...[text shortened]... a political stunt and a joke. If the Republicans in the House want a Balanced Budget, pass one.[/b]
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI think they only insist on passing a bill that starts the process, not actually achieving ratification before allowing a debt limit increase. Their proposal is that the BBA would take effect 5 years after it's eventual ratification.
How can any serious proposal contain this clause:
Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment [b]before raising the nation’s debt limit.
(Emphasis in Original)
Perhaps TP types are unaware (most have only a faint knowledge of the Constitution) that a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3 vote in each Ho ...[text shortened]... a political stunt and a joke. If the Republicans in the House want a Balanced Budget, pass one.[/b]
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyI read the actual proposal. Nowhere does it commit the Republicans to vote for a debt limit increase even if the BBA is passed by Congress. It merely allow President Obama to do something he can do anyway i.e. submit a debt ceiling increase to Congress. As such, it's meaningless political posturing esp. since everyone and their grandmothers know that the chance of a BBA getting a 2/3 majority in either House is near zero.
I think they only insist on passing a bill that starts the process, not actually achieving ratification before allowing a debt limit increase. Their proposal is that the BBA would take effect 5 years after it's eventual ratification.
As I said, if the Republicans in the House want a balanced budget, they could pass one. How come they don't?
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you mean balance it immediately?
I read the actual proposal. Nowhere does it commit the Republicans to vote for a debt limit increase even if the BBA is passed by Congress. It merely allow President Obama to do something he can do anyway i.e. submit a debt ceiling increase to Congress. As such, it's meaningless political posturing esp. since everyone and their grandmothers know that the ...[text shortened]... the Republicans in the House want a balanced budget, they could pass one. How come they don't?
18 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyIsn't that what opposing a debt ceiling increase implies?
Do you mean balance it immediately?
EDIT: Bachmann told a crowd of more than 100 supporters gathered in her Urbandale office's parking lot that she has never voted to raise the debt ceiling during her time in Congress and won't this time around, either.
"It's time for tough love," she said, to applause.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/michele-bachmann-debt-ceiling_n_895119.html
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWell yes, but as I said before, they are not simply opposing ANY debt limit increase. They are opposing the debt limit increase absent significant reforms.
Isn't that what opposing a debt ceiling increase implies?
I think they'll have to cave to the reality that those reforms are not going to happen and allow some type of increase to avoid chaos, but I doubt they'll want to go as far as McConnell went. Instead I think (guess) they'll fall back to a short term debt limit increase that will keep the issue on the table and around the President's neck through election season.
18 Jul 11
From the TP itself:
What they're saying around the country is, "Do not raise the debt ceiling. It's that simple. It's time for Congress to get its fiscal house in order," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin told CNN. The group is the nation's largest tea party organization.
Martin explained that her group's supporters want a balanced-budget amendment, significant spending cuts and lower taxes. And they don't want the debt limit raised.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/15/tea.party.warning/
The Right is saying the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised, so logically their right wing representatives in Congress should be passing a balanced budget in the House.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderOK. So the left wing are not in favor of balanced budgets and getting our fiscal house in order, so they're representatives are doing right by them?
From the TP itself:
What they're saying around the country is, "Do not raise the debt ceiling. It's that simple. It's time for Congress to get its fiscal house in order," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin told CNN. The group is the nation's largest tea party organization.
Martin explained that her group's su ...[text shortened]... ight wing representatives in Congress should be passing a balanced budget in the House.
This left vs right thing is going to have to give way to the math, and soon, or we just might balance the budget the really really hard way.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe TPers are the ones insisting that the debt ceiling not be raised and the budget must be balanced. Therefore, it is incumbent on them to present some plan that actually balances the budget. They continually refuse to do so; the plan you linked to didn't specify any cuts in spending at all (naturally taxes can't be raised in any way, shape or form).
OK. So the left wing are not in favor of balanced budgets and getting our fiscal house in order, so they're representatives are doing right by them?
This left vs right thing is going to have to give way to the math, and soon, or we just might balance the budget the really really hard way.
To insist on a BBA when you have no plan that balances the budget (that you have the ballsz to reveal anyway) is political theater, but nothing more.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyBy then there will be cities on Mars and the whole issue will be moot.
I think they only insist on passing a bill that starts the process, not actually achieving ratification before allowing a debt limit increase. Their proposal is that the BBA would take effect 5 years after it's eventual ratification.