Who owns the Debt problem? Ceiling?

[JustRalph]

Half of the debt ceiling increases since 1990 have occurred since 2007

Half!!


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/27/who-owns-the-debt-ceiling-issue-again/

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heritage-debtceilings.jpg

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heritage-discretionaryspending.jpg

[Tom]

A real leader would ignore who is responsible and focus on solving the problem.

Then there is Obama.

[Actor]

A real leader would ignore who is responsible and focus on solving the problem.
I hope I'm wrong but I think it would take a dictator to fix the problem. Someone who doesn't have to answer to Congress. As is, I'm afraid the problem can't be fixed. It's like diabetes. There's no cure and the best you can hope for is to manage it.

[Mike at A+]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, now WHAT happened in 2007?

[Actor]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, now WHAT happened in 2007?

The real estate bubble broke
The bailouts began

[Steve 'StatMan']

The real estate bubble broke
The bailouts began


3. The Democrats took majorities in both the House and Senate.
4. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House declared herself the "New Sheriff in Town"

[Marshall Bennett]

5. Blame it all on Bush :D

[Actor]

3. The Democrats took majorities in both the House and Senate.

That did not happen until 2009, two years later.

[Actor]

5. Blame it all on Bush :D

I do!

[Tom]

I hope I'm wrong but I think it would take a dictator to fix the problem. Someone who doesn't have to answer to Congress. As is, I'm afraid the problem can't be fixed. It's like diabetes. There's no cure and the best you can hope for is to manage it.

Actually, what we need is a president who does answer to Congress, and who has earned their respect, but more importantly, one who has a frigging brain in his head. We do not have that at this time. We have lying SOS who deserves no respect at all.

[mostpost]

Half of the debt ceiling increases since 1990 have occurred since 2007

Half!!


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/27/who-owns-the-debt-ceiling-issue-again/

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heritage-debtceilings.jpg

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/heritage-discretionaryspending.jpg

Hot Air, the most aptly named website ever, presents us with three charts which they then proceed to totally misinterpret.

The first chart shows us how the national debt has increased over the years, but fails to educate us as to the causes. For example it ignores the effects of two wars that were unnecessary or at best marginally necessary. It ignores the fact that the largest increase in the debt level coincides with a lowering of the tax rates. And, of course it ignores the fact that the most recent increases can be partly ( a large partly) traced to the previous administration.


The second chart shows us that Federal Spending is growing faster than Federal Revenue. It fails to point out that the two were on a fairly parallel track until we decided to cut taxes for people who did not need them cut and spend money on the unnecessary wars which I have previously mentioned.

The third chart accurately points out that mandatory spending has increased five times faster than discretionary spending. What's the point. If it's mandatory spending then how can we stop it. It seems to me a point in our favor that we have controlled spending where we can.

Mandatory spending includes mainly Social Security and Medicare. Are they suggesting that we not honor our obligations to those people? Of course they are. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Tom]

Fact check.

The dems, required by law to provide a budget, have failed to do so.
The president has offered no details on anything, just, ironically, hot air.
The repubs HAVE offered a bill, it does address the problems, and it sits on Harry Reid's desk - he refuse to allow a vote or even debate on it. What is he afraid of, mostie? Surely, the senate has accomplished nothing so far, so a vote would note interfere with any "business." They can debate it, make changes, and send it back to the House.....but they refuse to even do that. Why, mostie?

Like it or not, the repubs are the only ones to commit to paper and legislative process any suggestions at all. And like the bill or not, it DOES address the problem. And, oh yeah, the passed bill is the result of TEA PARTY people being responsible and refelecting the will of the elctorae that put them in office.

Face it mostie, this not a budget crisis - it as a political one, and Obama is unwilling to put the welfare of the nation ahead of his personal goals.

[Tom]

Some facts to consider.

btw, WHO says the drop dead date is 8/2?
Why, Timmy Geitner, the same moron who had NO CLUE about his own significant date, April 15 - the moron who couldn't figure our Turbo-Tax! :lol:

http://reason.org/news/show/five-uncomfortable-facts-about-the

[mostpost]

Fact check.

The dems, required by law to provide a budget, have failed to do so.
You mean like this.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD.pdf
Notice the signature-Barack Obama-he's a democrat. Notice the date-Feb. 14 2011-more than five months ago.

The president has offered no details on anything, just, ironically, hot air.
There are plenty of details out there about what Obama is proposing in terms of closing tax loopholes, ending the Bush tax cuts and cutting spending. However you have to go all over the place to piece them together. I agree that he should present a comprehensive plan in one place.

The repubs HAVE offered a bill, it does address the problems, and it sits on Harry Reid's desk - he refuse to allow a vote or even debate on it. What is he afraid of, mostie? Surely, the senate has accomplished nothing so far, so a vote would note interfere with any "business." They can debate it, make changes, and send it back to the House.....but they refuse to even do that. Why, mostie?
Because it is a stupid plan. First of all it puts all the burden on the middle class, the poor and the elderly. Secondly because it refuses to acknowledge that a lack of revenue is a part of the problem. Finally there is the Balanced Budget Amendment. Leave aside for the moment the fact that such an amendment would tie the hands of future generations in circumstances which we can not imagine. I am certain that a large portion of the population does not know that putting a proposal for a balanced budget amendment in this legislation moves us zero feet along the road to such an amendment.
There is absolutely no way that the Republican plan would get more than one or two Democratic votes in the senate. There are probably a few sensible Republican Senators who would vote against it. Think Maine, maybe Massachusetts.

Like it or not, the repubs are the only ones to commit to paper and legislative process any suggestions at all. And like the bill or not, it DOES address the problem. And, oh yeah, the passed bill is the result of TEA PARTY people being responsible and refelecting the will of the elctorae that put them in office.
The Republicans are not the only ones to commit to paper and the legislative process. Harry Reid has a bill in the hopper. The Gang of six has a proposal out there. I do agree that the Republican bill reflects the views of Tea Party members. That is why it is a dumb bill. :lol:

Face it mostie, this not a budget crisis - it as a political one, and Obama is unwilling to put the welfare of the nation ahead of his personal goals.

if it's not a budget crisis, then why are the Republicans-especially the Tea Partiers-so recalcitrant to lift the debt ceiling? After all it has been done a hundred times before. Since they are reluctant-no adamant-we can only conclude that they are doing so for political reasons. I just wish Bill Clinton was President. The Repugs would be cringing in a corner licking their wounds. :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

TheTea Party is insistent on having a balanced budget amendment because we cannot trust the government to behave responsibly. This is the opportunity go for this. They understand that there is no danger of default, despite the lies from Obama. They are acting inthe interests of those who elected them - and of the American people as a whole. They will NOT accept BAS as an option. They are calling his bluff.

Everyone always complains about how we get the same old same old from DC...this time, we are getting fresh blood and fresh ideas. And responsible government.

[Tom]

There is absolutely no way that the Republican plan would get more than one or two Democratic votes in the senate. There are probably a few sensible Republican Senators who would vote against it. Think Maine, maybe Massachusetts.

So then vote on it and modify it and return it. Assuming an outcome is not acceptable.

Or, better yet, where the HELL is the democrat budgets for the last two years, that are mandated by law?

[Tom]

You mean like this.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/f...ET-2012-BUD.pdf (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD.pdf)
Notice the signature-Barack Obama-he's a democrat. Notice the date-Feb. 14 2011-more than five months ago.

When was this budget passed and what was the vote on it? :lol:

[Tom]

I do agree that the Republican bill reflects the views of Tea Party members. That is why it is a dumb bill. :lol:

Holding congress to a budget is dumb? Spoken like true union boy. No cvlue how the real world works - as long as you get your handout.

[mostpost]

When was this budget passed and what was the vote on it? :lol:

The requirement is that the President present a budget. The fact that it was not passed is an indictment of the obstructionist Republican Congress.

[mostpost]

Holding congress to a budget is dumb? Spoken like true union boy. No cvlue how the real world works - as long as you get your handout.

What is dumb is thinking that the United States government which governs 300 million people in an area of 3.7 million square miles should be run like Aunt Ellie's fudge shop.

[delayjf]

As I recall, nobody was infavor of the Presidents budget, Dems or Repubs.

[JustRalph]

The requirement is that the President present a budget. The fact that it was not passed is an indictment of the obstructionist Republican Congress.

Nice try..........it was voted down 0-97 in the Senate. A senate controlled by Dems. Not one Dem voted for it

Once again you leave out the facts

[ElKabong]

The requirement is that the President present a budget. The fact that it was not passed is an indictment of the obstructionist Republican Congress.

I guess the Democrat controlled senate is obstructionist as well....97-0... "Hey Obama, go back to the basement and let us do the thinking around here when it comes to the budget, hmmkay. Signed, Democrats in the Senate"



http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget


President's budget sinks, 97-0

By Alexander Bolton - 05/25/11 06:15 PM ET


The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.

Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.
-snip

[Actor]

Fact check.

The dems, required by law to provide a budget, have failed to do so.


What law requires either party to provide a budget? I don't believe there is such a law. It's certainly not in the constitution, which does not recognize any political party. If there is such a law I'd like to know what it is and when it was passed.

[JustRalph]

What law requires either party to provide a budget? I don't believe there is such a law. It's certainly not in the constitution, which does not recognize any political party. If there is such a law I'd like to know what it is and when it was passed.

Section 10.2 in this doc from the white house explains it


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/s10.pdf

It's in the 2nd paragraph

[Actor]

The Tea Party is insistent on having a balanced budget amendment because we cannot trust the government to behave responsibly. This is the opportunity go for this.

Including any such requirement in the debt ceiling bill would be unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment must pass each house by 2/3, and then 2/3 of the states must ratify it. This implies that a constitutional amendment cannot simply be a rider to another bill.

Calling for a balanced budget amendment at this time simply muddies the waters and does nothing to address the problem.

[Actor]

Section 10.2 in this doc from the white house explains it


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/s10.pdf

It's in the 2nd paragraph

First, thanks for the info and the link.

However, this requires the President to propose a budget, not the dems per se.

[Tom]

]Including any such requirement in the debt ceiling bill would be unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment must pass each house by 2/3, and then 2/3 of the states must ratify it. This implies that a constitutional amendment cannot simply be a rider to another bill.[/b]

Calling for a balanced budget amendment at this time simply muddies the waters and does nothing to address the problem.

Duh. Who said any different?

[Actor]

Duh. Who said any different?
In post #15 you certainly imply that a balanced budget amendment can be included in the debt ceiling bill.

[Tom]

It is part of Cut, Cap, and Balance, but it is understood the process is that states have to ratify it.

[Actor]

Half of the debt ceiling increases since 1990 have occurred since 2007

Half!!


Any economist will tell you that, in the long term, economic growth is exponential, therefore, if the size of the debt keeps up with the size of the economy, the debt will increase exponentially. But politicians don't like exponential growth in debt and will only vote for linear increases. Putting these two together forces the President to make more frequently requests for an increase in the debt ceiling.

[Tom]

Revisiting the thread title - who own the problem?

Harry Reid does.
He has tabled to lawfully submited bills that will avoid the Tuesday disaster for purely political reasons. He is afraid to allow a vote. This entire problem is now his and his alone.

[Mike at A+]

Revisiting the thread title - who own the problem?

Harry Reid does.
He has tabled to lawfully submited bills that will avoid the Tuesday disaster for purely political reasons. He is afraid to allow a vote. This entire problem is now his and his alone.
AMEN! But the Obama worshipping press won't tell it that way.

[Tom]

The Lame Stream Media is all over Reid trying to get his bill passed.
This is no different than the two that already exist.