Thread: Will the house block next year's increase to the deficit ceiling? What else?

I don't see how the Republican House majority cannot vote to raise the debt limit.

This is the 'adult moment' that Boehner keep talking about. Yea, I know that it'll stick sideways in the throats of those who ran on reducing the spending, but they are going to have to buy some time to make the required spending cuts, and raising the debt ceiling will be required to gain that time.

On the other hand, Pawlenty was floating the idea that sequencing the spending would gain them the time that they need to make the required spending cuts.

Which do you think they'll do and why?

Neither side will touch Social Security and Medicare. It would be a sure fire way to lose their next election. The baby boomers are retiring and want their SS and Medicare.

I was reading a story about a week ago, The baby boomers are not as pre paired for retirement as they thought they were, A lot of them lost money in stock market and their houses are not worth much and they were planning on that money as part of their retirement. So they are going to vote out anyone that tries to take away their SS.

We need cut Defense spending and stop sending money to other countries.

Let's be honest. The only reason Republicans are grandstanding about the debt ceiling is because they are in the minority and a Democrat is in the White House. They voted to raise it every year Bush was in office.



Interesting factoid of the day: The annual budget deficit is roughly the same it was the day George W. Bush left office.

Well, as long as we are being honest:



Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

111th United States Congress - January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011 (Wikipedia.org)
Senate Majority: Democratic Party
House Majority: Democratic Party

110th United States Congress - January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2009 (Wikipedia.org)
Senate Majority: Democratic Party
House Majority: Democratic Party

109th United States Congress - January 3, 2005 – January 3, 2007 (Wikipedia.org)
Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party

So who controlled congress when the debit went on the rocket ship?

Also, I believe that the Republicans are the majority party in the house now.

Originally Posted by jpn

Let's be honest. The only reason Republicans are grandstanding about the debt ceiling is because they are in the minority and a Democrat is in the White House. They voted to raise it every year Bush was in office.



Interesting factoid of the day: The annual budget deficit is roughly the same it was the day George W. Bush left office.

Gee Golly. Looks like congress has been ignoring the balanced budget of 1997 all along!

If they pass a balanced budget amendment, they can raise the debt ceiling.

Originally Posted by Commodore

If they pass a balanced budget amendment, they can raise the debt ceiling.

And this make sense how?

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Gee Golly. Looks like congress has been ignoring the balanced budget of 1997 all along!

So you agree that the GOP rhetoric on the deficit ceiling is B.S.

Gee, that was easy.

Originally Posted by jpn

So you agree that the GOP rhetoric on the deficit ceiling is B.S.

Gee, that was easy.

All the new congress people that got elected on spending control are going to have to make an effort to not increase the debt limit, but as I've said before in reference to speaker Boehner's 'adult moment', they are going to have to vote to increase it to buy them time to make the needed spending cuts.

Does that mean all their rhetoric on the matter is BS? No, but reality will prevail and will have to be dealt with.

Frankly, I can't see anyone supporting the idea that this level of borrowing and spending can continue. It's just not sound fiscal policy.

"Revenue enhancement" is not the answer, less spending is. Don't you spend within your means? Doesn't this mean that the federal government has to as well?

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

"Revenue enhancement" is not the answer, less spending is. Don't you spend within your means? Doesn't this mean that the federal government has to as well?

"Cutting spending" is such a lame phrase, because no one wants to get specific.

Last April The Economist found that the only area of the federal budget which more than one-third of Americans supported cutting was foreign aid. Unfortunately it accounts for less than one percent of total spending.



Here are some self-described Tea Partiers on spending specifics:

Despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers...

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security -- the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

If spending cuts on huge programs like Social Security or Defense are off-limits, and tax hikes are off-limits, then we just aren't serious about balancing the budget.

Which is fine, since only a month ago Republicans voted with Democrats to pass an $850 billion economic stimulus bill (and insisted on including a massive tax cut for the very rich), and we sure don't want to be economically incoherent, do we?

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Neither side will touch Social Security and Medicare. It would be a sure fire way to lose their next election. The baby boomers are retiring and want their SS and Medicare.

I was reading a story about a week ago, The baby boomers are not as pre paired for retirement as they thought they were, A lot of them lost money in stock market and their houses are not worth much and they were planning on that money as part of their retirement. So they are going to vote out anyone that tries to take away their SS.

We need cut Defense spending and stop sending money to other countries.

I fall just outside the huge retirement bulge, I'll be 69 in a month. I do know that this recession cost me over 1/3 of my retirement savings. Just before retirement, I was advised by all to keep everything where it is, it's just a minor correction. I'd have lost at least half, except that I stopped listening and took my own steps.

Social Security would be deficit neutral though this current century, if not for IOU's by the government dipping into it, thus not allowing interest on the banked money. Medicare, a truly socialistic program, that works very well, and is cost affective. It would be much more so, if the regulatory agencies had been funded enough, starting under "W", to cut out a lot of the fraud by large companies.

Damn right, I'll vote for which ever party decides to 'take them away'. They work, they work quite well and better than anything currently available.

Originally Posted by jpn

"Cutting spending" is such a lame phrase, because no one wants to get specific.

Last April The Economist found that the only area of the federal budget which more than one-third of Americans supported cutting was foreign aid. Unfortunately it accounts for less than one percent of total spending.



Here are some self-described Tea Partiers on spending specifics:



If spending cuts on huge programs like Social Security or Defense are off-limits, and tax hikes are off-limits, then we just aren't serious about balancing the budget.

Which is fine, since only a month ago Republicans voted with Democrats to pass an $850 billion economic stimulus bill (and insisted on including a massive tax cut for the very rich), and we sure don't want to be economically incoherent, do we?

Yeah those damn rich people, if they would just let us take them down we could solve our national debt and create more entitlements.

goober
I've been listening to various Republican proposals, they want to keep defense spending high, and make across the board tax cuts permanent, keep the debt ceiling in place, make big cuts in defense, preserve Social Security and Medicare, make big cuts to entitlements. Basically they seem to be on both sides of every issue, except they all want to repeal ObamaCare, some want to replace it, others just want things to go back to the way they were.
So far, no coherent message, except that Obama is bad, and they are good.

Keep defense spending "high"? In what context? As noted in another thread, even with the spending on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is substantially below were it was during the cold war.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Keep defense spending "high"? In what context? As noted in another thread, even with the spending on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is substantially below were it was during the cold war.

But, Marcus, how much military is enough, FFS? At what point do we say that bankrupting ourselves to make sure that we can blow up the combined armies of the rest of the planet isn't a great strategy?