Obama's and Bush's effect on the deficit

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

Here is the logic with that. It is like handing another credit card to you kid who already ran up so much debt that you know they will never pay for it. And then telling them, 'OK, here is one more credit card for $2.3 Trillion. Now remember, we need to sit down and talk about your out of control spending someday'....... 2 years later......Oh you need another credit card? Well we never did talk about that spending. Well..... maybe in another 2 years......

Finally America elected people into office because they are sick of the out of control spending and you guys just want to ignore that again and give more credit without taking care of the problem that got us here. Just put it off until AFTER the next election. How convenient!

So you are really saying that our debt has nothing to do with spending?

How come when Democrats win elections and impose their will without any checks or balances, liberals remind us that "elections have consequences" -- but when Nov. 2010 landslide elections produced several dozen, principled Tea Party representatives in the House, who won't agree to raise Obama's credit card spending limit, it's not "elections have consequences" but "the Tea Party is holding America hostage."

Hypocricy?

The Viking wrote: How come when Democrats win elections and impose their will without any checks or balances, liberals remind us that "elections have consequences" -- but when Nov. 2010 landslide elections produced several dozen, principled Tea Party representatives in the House, who won't agree to raise Obama's credit card spending limit, it's not "elections have consequences" but "the Tea Party is holding America hostage."

Hypocricy?

Not me? I never say it based on party. I gave the FACTS on GW (and I think he will be one of the all time worst presidents). I never said Obama wasn't spending money. They are all deficit spending - even boehner's proposal was deficit. GW was the worst at it. He happened to be republican. Clinton actually erased debt. He happened to be Dem. Obama is Dem and he is deficit spending, but nowhere NEAR what GW did.

Maybe it's because the 87 teabaggers are bat-sh*t-crazy, and have no interest in governing, but just throwing bombs, (and tantrums), and saying 'NO', and bringing the government down unless they get their way. "Dey gonna hold dey breafs until dey turn blu!!"

I'm expecting a number of them to be removed by adults in the '12 elections....

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

I'm glad you think so LJ, it will help ensure the first Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation called by the citizens to reign in an out of control wannabe national government. Since the coup by the executive and legislative branches of the judicial one, it remains the sole avenue left to actually restrain the DC government regardless of which party the current crop of consolidationists belong to. Limit their access to money and you limit the breadth and scope of their power as well.

Given so much proof through their actions that they are unwilling to limit themselves, limits will eventually be imposed upon them. It is only a matter of time LJ before it happens LJ and the unwillingness of the current executive and Senate to allow the states to be asked about it will only hasten the day the states tell the DC government that they no longer have a choice. Might take another few election cycles mind you, but with 29 states on the boat already, reality is that only another 2 or 3 will need to jump on board, as with the 17th, before the DC folks do it themselves to avoid the states calling for the convention.

It's inevitable that it will happen unless the DC government shows that it is willing to limit its spending to the tax capacity without such restraint being forced upon them. Given the history of the last 70 years, we all know exactly how willing the DC government is to restrain itself, don't we?

If the regressives were actually half as smart as they think they are they would agree to allow the amendment to be offered now while there is a better chance of the states turning it down. That might buy them another decade or two before it started being called for by the states again.

LadyJazzer wrote: Maybe it's because the 87 teabaggers are bat-sh*t-crazy, and have no interest in governing, but just throwing bombs, (and tantrums), and saying 'NO', and bringing the government down unless they get their way. "Dey gonna hold dey breafs until dey turn blu!!"

I'm expecting a number of them to be removed by adults in the '12 elections....

Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Is he bat-s**t crazy? Has he no interest in governing? (Could be very true!) Did he vote that way just for attention?

rofllol I am hoping POTUS Obama is replaced by an adult in 2012 too.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

I'm glad you think so LJ, it will help ensure the first Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation called by the citizens to reign in an out of control wannabe national government. Since the coup by the executive and legislative branches of the judicial one, it remains the sole avenue left to actually restrain the DC government regardless of which party the current crop of consolidationists belong to. Limit their access to money and you limit the breadth and scope of their power as well.

Given so much proof through their actions that they are unwilling to limit themselves, limits will eventually be imposed upon them. It is only a matter of time LJ before it happens LJ and the unwillingness of the current executive and Senate to allow the states to be asked about it will only hasten the day the states tell the DC government that they no longer have a choice. Might take another few election cycles mind you, but with 29 states on the boat already, reality is that only another 2 or 3 will need to jump on board, as with the 17th, before the DC folks do it themselves to avoid the states calling for the convention.

It's inevitable that it will happen unless the DC government shows that it is willing to limit its spending to the tax capacity without such restraint being forced upon them. Given the history of the last 70 years, we all know exactly how willing the DC government is to restrain itself, don't we?

Ah, how do I repudiate thee....Let me count the ways:

There was no coup...But thanks for playing....

wannabe national government
consolidationists

You forgot a few...

:Snooze

What FDR and Congress did in 1936 is in no way appreciably different from a General walking into the executive office and telling the leader of the nation he can leave now or be tossed out 2 months from now, it makes no difference, he will soon be looking for work. That is a coup, pure and simple; and that is exactly what FDR and Congress did with the Supreme Court. Do it yourself or we will do if for you, but it is going to happen regardless of how.

PrintSmith wrote: What FDR and Congress did in 1936 is in no way appreciably different from a General walking into the executive office and telling the leader of the nation he can leave now or be tossed out 2 months from now, it makes no difference, he will soon be looking for work. That is a coup, pure and simple; and that is exactly what FDR and Congress did with the Supreme Court. Do it yourself or we will do if for you, but it is going to happen regardless of how.

Sorry, PS, but this "coup" of 1936 crap is starting to sound tiresomely like southern Civil War revisionists trying to make a case that because of some overblown, obscure technicality or other, they really won the war and we are all subject to the Confederate Government.

It's 2011. 1936 was more than 3/4 of a century ago.

i might suggest you do some reading into the concept of "settled law", because apparently somehow you missed that in all your massive research and all regarding how you're going to overturn everything that has happend in this country since Roosevelt.