Obama's and Bush's effect on the deficit

archer wrote: This should never have even been an issue, what the Dem's and the president wanted was a simple bill to raise the debt limit......this has nothing to do with spending or the deficit....it is simply allowing the government to pay the bills on things it has already agreed to.....we cannot make those things go away, we can't cut spending in the past.....these are US obligations that HAVE to be paid.

It is the Republicans who started putting conditions on what has always been almost a formality, because the US does not default on it's obligations. The fact that the Republicans would use the reputation of the United States in a high stakes game of chicken is deplorable. Lets just raise the lim it....as everyone, even the Republicans agree we must.....then fight about future buidgets and spending and whatever. Letting a bunch of tea party prima donnas with a political agenda ruin the reputation of this nation is just so wrong. I hope they all get punished for this folly in 2012.

The Republicans have proposed pass a debt limit increase that covers the obligations through the rest of this fiscal year and have a second increase that would grant Obama his wish to get the issue off the table for 2012 after Congress approves a BBA. That, too, is dead on arrival in the portion of government controlled by Democrats.

What is wrong with Congress passing a BBA? It would take a full 75% of the states, 38 out of 50, to actually make it part of the Constitution. The Democrats would have full opportunity to convince 13 states that the amendment shouldn't be ratified, so why veto a bill that raises the debt limit over that? It only takes 34 states to require a Constitutional Convention on the matter and 29 states have a standing call for doing just that; meaning only 5 more states would need to pass a measure calling for it either through their legislatures or by direct petition efforts of their citizens. Think that 5 more states might decide to show Congress who actually is boss after this whole fiasco and hearing Obama and Reid say that provision alone will generate a veto or doom the legislation in the Senate? I do.

Boehner tried. The tea bag folks weren't happy. The Republicans are split. It is making a mess.

I agree with Archer. This has nothing to do with spending. It just allows us to pay our bills

Kate wrote: As you can see, the 110th & 11th Congress, there were 136 & 139 cloture motions filed, the majority by Republicans. When the Democrats were in the minority, they didn't threaten filibuster nearly half as much. Interesting, huh?

Might that be because for the most part they approved of and supported the huge increases in spending? Might that be because they wanted the increases in the social welfare programs that Republican-Democrats (aka Compassionate Conservatives) were proposing? Might that be because most of them supported the military actions until it became apparent that they could make some political hay out of the issue and gain some seats in the Congress by doing so?

Filibusters are used when the minority party in the Senate disagrees with what the majority party is doing, not when they agree with it.

PrintSmith wrote: Might that be because for the most part they approved of and supported the huge increases in spending? Might that be because they wanted the increases in the social welfare programs that Republican-Democrats (aka Compassionate Conservatives) were proposing? Might that be because most of them supported the military actions until it became apparent that they could make some political hay out of the issue and gain some seats in the Congress by doing so?

Filibusters are used when the minority party in the Senate disagrees with what the majority party is doing, not when they agree with it.

I think the republicans LIVE for partisanship. That is what I think. The party was *ruined* by Karl Rove.

Edited to add: Most folks believe that it is the Republicans that are causing this, and IMHO it is hurting them. Our bills will get paid. It is the American citizens that will pay, and that will really tork them off... Good for the progressive movement.
[url]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... d=webmail1 [/url]

The BBA simply puts the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist nutters in charge of the insane-asylum... It'll never happen...Nor should it.

MsMAM wrote: Boehner tried. The tea bag folks weren't happy. The Republicans are split. It is making a mess.

I agree with Archer. This has nothing to do with spending. It just allows us to pay our bills

Not entirely true - some of the money appropriated for spending, and thus necessary for inclusion in the debt limit increase, has yet to be spent so it isn't a bill we have incurred that needs to be paid - not to mention that a 2012 budget, which the House has already debated and passed, has yet to even be addressed by the Senate. Unless I miss my guess there's still some SwindleUs money lying around unspent from 2 years ago that could be added to the pot that really wouldn't be cutting any of the current appropriations at all.

LadyJazzer wrote: The BBA simply puts the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist nutters in charge of the insane-asylum... It'll never happen...Nor should it.

That BBA would have prevented all that spending by Bush you lefties seem to be so constantly upset about had it been in place at the time. Think of it as future protection against instances where Compassionate Conservatives gain control of Congress and the Oval Office and go on a Democratesque spending spree.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: The BBA simply puts the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist nutters in charge of the insane-asylum... It'll never happen...Nor should it.

That BBA would have prevented all that spending by Bush you lefties seem to be so constantly upset about had it been in place at the time. Think of it as future protection against instances where Compassionate Conservatives gain control of Congress and the Oval Office and go on a Democratesque spending spree.

I just plain flat out don't agree with you.

PrintSmith wrote:

Kate wrote: As you can see, the 110th & 11th Congress, there were 136 & 139 cloture motions filed, the majority by Republicans. When the Democrats were in the minority, they didn't threaten filibuster nearly half as much. Interesting, huh?

Might that be because for the most part they approved of and supported the huge increases in spending? Might that be because they wanted the increases in the social welfare programs that Republican-Democrats (aka Compassionate Conservatives) were proposing? Might that be because most of them supported the military actions until it became apparent that they could make some political hay out of the issue and gain some seats in the Congress by doing so?

Filibusters are used when the minority party in the Senate disagrees with what the majority party is doing, not when they agree with it.

Yes, it is a procedure used mostly by the minority party to stop legislation, but I think that the Republicans really abused it in the last two Congressional sessions. They doubled it, Viking. They became the party of NO.

BTW - you can certainly click on the link and read the bills that they filibustered (or filed a motion of cloture) and do your own research instead of speculating on the reasons. The link I provided will take you right to each and every bill.

I don't think of it as anything other than what it is...A device to put Rove/Norquist screw-the-nation economics into the Constitution. It will never happen.