Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:06 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
That does sound reasonable - though knowing as little as I do, I would want to hear the arguments against it, too.

I was thinking that the TEA Party's biggest problem is that they are arguing "numbers", so to speak, and ignoring the psychology. So even if it might be true that there won't be any significant problems post-Aug 2nd technically, people are worried & skittish & more likely to make panic judgments (reminiscent of the run on the banks during the Depression where people actually contributed to the failure of their banks).

Anyway, the Boehner got his bill thru the House -
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60265.html
Has anyone heard when the Senate votes on Reid's bill?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:40 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
I was thinking that the TEA Party's biggest problem is that they are arguing "numbers", so to speak, and ignoring the psychology. So even if it might be true that there won't be any significant problems post-Aug 2nd technically, people are worried & skittish & more likely to make panic judgments (reminiscent of the run on the banks during the Depression where people actually contributed to the failure of their banks).


I think the psychology of the markets is a huge factor. It doesn't matter if we will still be able to pay our creditors next week if people think we won't. Anything could happen. There could be a run on the dollar. There could be a stock market crash. Companies that were thinking about hiring might just decide to wait for a good long while to see a period of calm in Washington before trying to bring in new employees. The cost of goods that we import - including GASOLINE - would go up as the dollar falls - even if it doesn't fall by as much as people fear. Interest rates could rise. Lots and lots of bad things will likely take place if we don't have a deal.

The irony of all of this is that the Tea Party is probably hurting its own long-term interests by doing this. Until a couple of weeks ago, the public was frustrated with President Obama because of the economy. Now, according to many polls, the public is even more frustrated with the Republicans and particularly the Tea Party. This is NOT likely to lead to more conservatives being in Congress two years from now. And so it's entirely possible that by pushing so hard at such a critical time and by having a debate that produces so much drama and stress for the public, that the prospect for the long-term goal of having more fiscal conservatives in a leadership position could be hurt.

The Tea Party has sort of lessened the pressure on the President by diffusing some of the blame that, until a couple of weeks ago, had rested pretty squarely on him. This, along with the pretty lackluster set of candidates for President next year and the negative public perception of the freshmen Congressmen, doesn't seem like a good strategy for doing much in the long-term.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com



Post by TheValuesVoter Liked by: McFox
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:04 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Lehigh Acres,Florida
Likes: 211
Liked: 147
quote: Boehner refused to allow there even be a VOTE on a plan that would force Geitner to pay our debtors first in the case that the debt ceiling didn't get raised.
Jac,
I have been wondering what happened. They said during a press conference,they were voting on the bill, which would have at least calmed the seniors about their checks, and then it never happened.
My oppinion,for what its worth is that the TP republicans are getting a bad rap. Ive watched their interviews and their debates and they have done a great job getting the CCB passed. The next day Boehner is pushing his own bill. If you know it wont get past the Senate,why talk these guys into supporting it knowing it will cost them their job?
I dont understand all of the talk about stopping the spending before the country crashes and then when they stand their ground, people think they should compromise. This is confusing to me. This is all playing into Obamas hands and the Republicans are the bad guys,no matter what they do.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:26 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
You're right - the Republicans are the bad guys no matter what they do!

What happened to CC&B is that Reid made it immediately DOA in the Senate - just as he had been saying he would. That's when Boehner began putting together his bill.

To some extent, I agree that the TEA Party is getting a bum rap. But they are holding out for a position that cannot possibly be accomplished with the current Congress & POTUS. (While the liberals are holding out for spending even more & just pay for it with new taxes) S&P said that we will most likely be downgraded on the basis of the gridlock we are experiencing as much as the unsustainable spending because, with the gridlock, we are unable to fix the overspending.

From my little bit of research, the Full Faith and Credit Act was first introduced in January when Geithner first sounded the alarm to Congress and stated that we might default. Then it was re-introduced ~3 days ago by Pat Toomey. Apparently, it is still in committee with Ways and Means. These are the members currently on Ways and Means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... h_Congress

It may be that since Geithner stated definitively that our debtors are definitely going to be paid first, they may have decided to focus on the debt debate, but I'm just guessing. It wouldn't make any sense for Boehner to stick his neck out to kill it, though. Esp since it would be better PR for the GOP at a time when they could desperately use it.

Meanwhile, the fact that Obama has been encouraging panic about SS & medicare checks, etc, while telling the banks not to worry, shows that he is blatantly manipulating public opinion. As POTUS, it's his job to be calming & reassuring people not inciting panic, but he has always put himself first - total narcissist.

If this were nothing more than pols playing politics, all the GOP had to do was put up a token fight, then step back & let the Dems have it their way - the TEA Party is a minority after all - then the Dems would be getting all the heat leading in to 2012.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:48 am 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
TheValuesVoter wrote:
I can't believe that there are people who aren't putting the blame on both parties here. Again, this is one of the reasons we have a lazy Congress whose main motivation is to wave the boogey man (the other party) around and hope that voters will absolve them and "their side" of all blame while blaming the others.

Folks, the Democrats have not wanted to have a balanced budget and should have taken care of this when the House and the Senate were both in Democratic hands before this January 3rd. On the other hand, the majority of the $9 trillion dollars of our $14 trillion dollar debt that we acquired since 2001 have been borrowed when Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House. I'm not sure what part of my thinking that this blame falls on every side is flawed, and since I am an Independent, perhaps I'll never understand it. I think it is what it is and it is a mess that both parties have created and that voters continue to enable them to get away with it. At least until now. I have the feeling that there will be a LOT of unemployed members of Congress in a year and a half.

One thing is for sure, though - I will never vote for any sitting member of Congress of either party for anything in the future. With the squabbling and the gamesmanship that has been going on all over the place there, I don't think any of them should be entrusted with any serious level of responsibility ever again.

I'm just curious, would you be willing to even consider the occasional person who does the right thing? I'm wondering about someone like Dr. Coburn (R, OK) who pulled a fine tooth comb through the entire budget (what an undertaking that must have been) and found $9 trillion in savings over 10 years. Just one example is the way Medicare pays for O2 delivery equipment. A change from straight rental to a rent to own model would save us $6.2 billion dollars in 10 years. I haven't read his whole report but so far I'm impressed! I think we want to keep guys like him in Congress. I understand your frustration and I think you're right in saying that both parties need to bear some responsibility but just voting out all of the incumbents doesn't solve the problem.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."



Post by juditupp has received Likes: 2 justgrace, QuoVadisAnima
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:49 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Apparently Moody's won't downgrade us so long as we increase the ceiling/don't default.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:59 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Some helpful video clips for widening our perspectives while the chess match continues & Reid spends this day scrambling for support just as he was ridiculing Boehner for having to do. :roll:

Did President Manufacture Debt Crisis?


Alan Simpson: Americans Disgusted with Both Parties


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Miserere wrote:
Apparently Moody's won't downgrade us so long as we increase the ceiling/don't default.


Sounds a lot like what a thief would say..

Give me your wallet and I won't kill you...

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:12 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
juditupp wrote:
I'm just curious, would you be willing to even consider the occasional person who does the right thing? I'm wondering about someone like Dr. Coburn (R, OK) who pulled a fine tooth comb through the entire budget (what an undertaking that must have been) and found $9 trillion in savings over 10 years. Just one example is the way Medicare pays for O2 delivery equipment. A change from straight rental to a rent to own model would save us $6.2 billion dollars in 10 years. I haven't read his whole report but so far I'm impressed! I think we want to keep guys like him in Congress. I understand your frustration and I think you're right in saying that both parties need to bear some responsibility but just voting out all of the incumbents doesn't solve the problem.


Yes, I would. I do feel that we need to clean house in the House - in both parties. But, I certainly would support a person who not only stands for my values (pro-life, fiscal responsibility) and who is not so partisan in terms of political affiliation that they are willing to let the nation suffer in order to prove a point or score a point. From what I know of Tom Coburn, I do like him and would vote for him.

Having said that, i would be pretty happy if 90% of the incumbents in both parties were to get voted out and start their second or third careers as media political pundits, where they can hyperventilate, slam each other and shout all they want without anyone in the public actually getting hurt by it. We have a sad mixture of career politicians (Senator Inouye first took office in 1963; Congressman Dingle first took office in 1955), lots of folks who think they're playing a contact sport instead of serving the people, a number of firebrands and a few whackos and pervs. I still sort of think I could go to a football stadium sometime next month and pick 535 people at random and have a 50% chance of those folks exhibiting more common sense than the folks we have running things now.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:13 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Why do you single out the House? It seems to me that the Senate is the most dysfunctional of the two - and is the most bipartisanly dysfunctional. At least the House is producing legislation; the Senate has done virtually nothing but put up roadblocks all year (even the freshmen senators are complaining of the same).

P.S. Did you watch the two clips I posted this afternoon? I thought for certain that you would appreciate Alan Simpson's view, but I would also like to know what you think of Rand Paul's response as several of the interviewer's questions seem to resonate with yours.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:00 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Why do you single out the House? It seems to me that the Senate is the most dysfunctional of the two - and is the most bipartisanly dysfunctional. At least the House is producing legislation; the Senate has done virtually nothing but put up roadblocks all year (even the freshmen senators are complaining of the same).

P.S. Did you watch the two clips I posted this afternoon? I thought for certain that you would appreciate Alan Simpson's view, but I would also like to know what you think of Rand Paul's response as several of the interviewer's questions seem to resonate with yours.


I mentioned the House here, but I really mean our elected leaders in general - both of the two elected branches and both of the two legislative houses.

I'm sorry - I meant to watch the clips but did not yet have the chance to do so. I will do so shortly.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
I am very disappointed that Speaker Boehner is apparently giving in on this battle. The Republicans have the right and best plan. Unfortunately, the major news media will paint them as trying to take Social Security and other entitlements away to scare them into a corner. Yet the House Republicans seem to be the only ones trying to hold back spending at all.

The most crucial issue now is for this nation to vote out the most liberal president we have ever had. He presents the roadblock to success and true compromise that will help, not destroy, the American people and system.

Yes, both parties have spent and taxed too much in the past. It is like a disease among politicians. But it is an ingrained part of the belief system of Democrats to tax more and spend more of the people's money. In other words, they believe in Big Government. Their platform and the people they elect show that increasingly their philosophy is becoming more and more anti-life and leftist and socialist. Now, the Democrats are unfortunately marching lockstep with the most liberal president America has ever elected. And he has NO plan to reduce spending, taxes, or government. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

TheValuesVoter wrote:
I am so frustrated and done with ALL of Washington. They're BOTH guilty of raising the national debt to where it is now. As a case in point, let me share with everyone the timeline of the House career of Speaker Boehner.

* January 3rd, 1991 - Assumed office as a Congressman for Ohio's 8th District.
National Debt at that time: $3,233,313,451,777.25 (as of 9/30/1990).


* January 3rd, 2001 - Assumed role as Chairman of the House Committee on
Education and Workforce.
National Debt at that time: $5,723,237,439,563.59

(An increase of 43% during the ten-year time span. Despite the fact that the
Republicans held the House and the Senate for six of those ten years and the
Presidency for the first two of those ten years).


* February 2nd, 2006 - Assumed role as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives
National Debt at that time: $8,198,626,872,332.20

(Another increase of 43% during the five year time span. Despite the fact
that the Republicans controlled the House and the Presidency for the entire
time span and the Senate for four of those six years).


* January 1st, 2007 - Assumed role as Minority Leader of the United States
House of Representatives.
National Debt at that time: 8,677,214,255,313.07

(Another increase of 5% during the eleven month time span. Despite the
fact that the Republicans conrolled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency
throughout that time).


* January 5th, 2011- Assumed role as Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives.
National Debt at that time: 13,997,932,781,828.89

(An increase of 61% during the four year time span, which can be
divided into two parts. The national debt raised by 22% during the last two
years of President Bush's term, when the Republicans held the White House
and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. It raised by another
31% during the first two years of President Obama's term, when the
Democrats controlled the White House and both the Senate and the House).


So, it is in my opinion pretty inaccurate to make the issue of our national debt a partisan issue. As evidenced by the above, it's pretty clear that both parties have had a heavy hand in spending more than we have and that any differences between the two parties' overspending habits is simply just a matter of the degree to which they overspend.

John Boehner has been part of the House leadership for most of his twenty years in Washington, including for the significant period of time in which Republicans controlled the entire government. I say this to say that I think that there are politicians in Washington, Boehner among them, who have had as significant a role in getting us into this position as anyone else has and who are now trying to pretend that they've always been frugal and that they're trying to protect us from the other side. Ba-lo-ney.


[My comment: We could put Harry Reid or many other names in the same roles you mention. Boehner needs to stand more firmly for principle, too, but I wonder how many of us have called or written his office? We, the people, control the Congress, if we will take our job seriously.]

And meanwhile, while they're arguing with each other and blaming each other for the crisis that most of them helped create, they're not working across the aisle to solve a problem that can only be solved by both sides working together and compromising. Meanwhile, we the people are suffering. And possibly worse of all, some of us are have such an intensity of feeling of dislike toward "the other side" that we refuse to hold them all accountable.

I wish that politicians weren't able to disclose their party affiliation. This is how we got in this mess. Most of us are so intensely on the side of (R) or (D) that we can't evaluate individuals on the basis of their actual records and what they actually stand for. This is why we have "safe districts" and we have a lot of members of Congress who have no real motivation to work. A Republican knows that he can do almost anything in certain districts and face no threat of losing his job to a person who has another party affiliation and a Democrat knows that they can do anything and never worry about losing to a Republican. Our intense partisanship as voters, our intense personal dislike for the other side, and our unwillingness to view "our side" as even partially accountable for the problems that only two sides can create has enabled Washington to be broken and to stay broken.



TVV, I agree that it is too bad that the actions or ideas of each politician cannot be judged on his or her own merit. And that so many cannot think on their own and truly work to uphold our Constitution, as they are sworn to do. There is too much being done out of intense partisanship and too little done with the welfare and freedoms of the American people in mind.

That is why I like Gov. Huckabee's brand of party spirit so well. He agrees the most with the Republican platform and therefore works through HuckPac to try to help the best candidates to win. It may be a hard sell to get Washington to be less partisan and more patriotic. But the lesson I think Huckabee would have us to learn is that you can have very firm principles you stand upon, yet have a vertical approach to politics.

Too few of the entrenched politicians know how to do this. We, the people, have made a start in changing the House. Of course, it takes time for the newly elected officials to learn the ropes of government. But we have to replace those leaders who will not listen to the people and do the right thing. We still have much work to do. And top of the list is to get a fiscal and social conservative President, along with getting better candidates to defeat Reid and Pelosi and other very liberal congressmen and women.

And the reforming needs to be done within the Republican Party, I think. Trying to start new parties only serves to strengthen the liberal Democrat's chances of winning the whole thing. Remember how Clinton became President with less than a majority because of Perot running as an independent and taking votes from the Republican candidate.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:45 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
(QVA - watched the first of the two videos and will watch the second one tonight. Thanks for the links).

I guess my whole response toward this crisis is something that reminds me of Bill Cosby's famous comedic line, speaking to his TV son, "I brought you into this world and I'll take you out." I feel like our national elected leaders should know that there are a lot of people who are both angry and very stressed out and who have watched this zoo go on over the past few weeks who will say "we brought you all to Washington and we can send you all home." This whole thing to me was just a joke.

I am glad to have spending cuts. These are badly needed and we badly need much deeper spending cuts. But, from my perspective, there is an element of common sense that is missing here, on both sides.

Democratics don't seem to realize that there is a finite amount of money that the government has and that once it's gone, it's actually gone and we're borrowing from the world in order to run our daily business. There is a pretty amazingly simple principle that some politicians don't understand: if you spend more than you take in and you never stop doing that, you will one day be poor. This applies to countries, organizations and individuals. It's a guaranteed formula for eventual poverty unless you break the cycle at some point in time.

Republicans don't seem to understand that there are both short-term and long-term goals and that both must be met. Long-term, we indeed must have a balanced budget and a much less bloated federal government. Short-term, we must pay our obligations so that we preserve the credit rating and good name that is necessary in order to ever be able to achieve the long-term goals.

Quick question for anyone who feels like answering. Let's say that your family is in the situation in which you are cash-poor, have thousands of dollars in mortgage and other monthly expenses and need to borrow to make ends meet. You want to get to be in a position in which you have a balanced budget, even if it means downsizing your house and selling your car. You've decided that you will not incur anymore debt as a family. But, reality is that you're not going to be able to sell your house and buy a new one immediately - at least several mortgage payments are going to be due before that can happen. You need to borrow from a credit line in order to pay the mortgage for the time between now and the time you can sell your house and buy a more affordable one. How do you respond to this? Do you:

a) Decide that you won't dip into the credit any more, no matter what happens, even if it means that you will miss the mortgage payments that are due between now and the time that you will be able to sell your current house and buy a new one. By choosing this option, you will in effect have a balanced budget right now. You will not be using credit. But, on the down side, you will damage your credit rating which will make you effectively unable to qualify for a new home and even have trouble getting a new apartment. But, your buddies assure you, you have indeed stuck to your principles of "fiscal responsibility" because you're not charging any more debt.

b) Decide that you will do the thing that you've said you want to get away with - borrow money - for as long as you need to in order to be able to sell the current house and then adjust your life so that your monthly bills are within your budget. You are borrowing for now, but, eventually, you will be debt free and you will preserve a good credit rating and a good name.

Which option would you choose? By the way, if you choose option b), you're a liberal and have broken your no-debt pledge (joking).

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:25 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Well, looks like we're looking at 1 trillion cuts up front (apparently including heavy defense cuts), 1.4 trillion cuts to be decided by Special Committee at this point.

This might have a tough time getting through the House. The left wing of the D Caucus won't vote for no tax increases, the hawk wing of the R Caucus won't like excessive defense cuts. It remains to be seen what the specific defense cuts are, that will be important for a lot of R votes.

If the defense cuts aren't ridiculous and irresponsible then I'm sure the plan gets nearly all the R votes the Boehner bill got, and this time it gets a lot of D votes as well since Reid and the D's are as responsible to some degree for negotiating the bill into the form it's in.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/3 ... -battle-2/

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:03 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Well, for better or worse, the beginnings of an agreement have finally officially been reached. Now they have to see if they can get enough members of the House & the Senate on board to get it thru by the end of tomorrow. Can't believe they were able to keep the BBA in! Hope the defense cuts are reasonable ones.
Quote:
Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders

Published July 31, 2011
FoxNews.com
AP

President Obama announced Sunday night that leaders of both parties in both chambers have reached an agreement on a debt-reduction deal that will "lift the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy" and prevent the nation from potentially defaulting on the nation's financial obligations.

According to the president, the deal means an immediate cut of $1 trillion in government spending over a 10-year period accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling. That will be followed by the creation of a committee to come up with additional cuts worth at least $1.5 trillion to be voted on by the end of the year. The debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion if the committee recommendations are approved.

Each of the GOP and Democratic leaders in the chamber will nominate lawmakers to the 12-member committee to report back in the fall. Tax hikes are not part of the package and a pledge for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote is.

Obama said everything will be on the table and both parties will find some of the cuts objectionable.

"Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they're still around for future generations. That's why the second part of this agreement is so important," Obama said from the White House briefing room.

The Senate adjourned Sunday night without a vote on a deal, but Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said that the parties are going to have to give ground and compromise so the country doesn't default.

"I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff. The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States," Reid said.

Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will both present the agreement to their caucuses on Monday morning. House Democrats also set a morning meeting to discuss the details.

McConnell, R-Ky., said that the framework calls for a "review that will insure significant cuts in Washington spending."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said after the president's speech that she'll see what kind of support her caucus can provide.

Several objections are expected, including from Republican defense hawks who don't want the military gutted and from the Congressional Black Caucus, which called the deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich."

House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government.

"It would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment, while creating, I think, some new incentives for past opponents of a BBA to support it," Boehner said.

The 12-member committee, composed of six Republicans and six Democrats, three from each party and each chamber, will report the legislation by Nov. 23. The vote, to take place by Dec. 23, would be an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.

According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts -- with roughly half of the cuts coming from defense and half from Medicare.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits.

House Republicans spent nearly an hour on the conference call with Boehner. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee said that the plan starts from a better baseline than the proposal presented by Boehner last week.

But one House GOP lawmaker who told Fox News he intends to vote against the plan emerged from the call saying he doubted it was 98 percent in the GOP's favor.

"The minority leader's on board," said the lawmaker who requested anonymity in order to speak freely. "Really? Nancy's cool with only 2 percent? She's that stupid?"

The lawmaker added that Obama's health care law was protected while "the military got screwed," saying the across-the-board trigger between defense and Medicare left Medicaid off the table. The theory was advanced that the health care law will be achieved by pushing greater numbers of recipients of government health care benefits onto Medicaid.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a fierce critic of the entire process, did not outright oppose the legislation but also expressed his disappointment in the chain of events that led to the 11th-hour deal. He said he had wanted seven days to review the bill.

"Republicans offered budgets and bills with trillions more in spending cuts than contained in the current legislation. They lowered their proposal substantially so Democrats would end their blockade. That took courage. But the one fact every American must know is that the level of cuts in this proposal are only a first step. Far more work and much greater reductions in spending are required to balance the budget," said Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., also faulted the 11th hour negotiating but said, "We have settled on a reasonable compromise that all sides should immediately support and which I intend to vote for."

With Aug. 2 put forth as the drop-dead date for a deal or a potential default of the nation's loans by the Treasury Department, the Senate could begin voting on the legislation early Monday. The House has already approved rules that allow same-day voting on the measure.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... z1TkZB2zfr


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:04 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
This article seemed to be a good synopsis of where things stand this morning -
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/17460 ... nding-cuts

For your entertainment, here are two articles that win this mornings awards for 'Most Surprising' and 'Least Surprising'
Quote:
Rep. Conyers to Obama: "We've Had It", Calls for Protests at the White House


Joe Schoffstall

Monday, August 1, 2011 - 9:45am

At a press conference held by the House "Out of Poverty Caucus", Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) lambasted President Obama over the debt ceiling deal and called for people to march on the White House in protest.

Said Conyers:

We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that. My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/rep-conyers-o ... hite-house


Quote:
Budget Deal a 'Joke,' Obama Is 'Incompetent': Trump

Published: Monday, 1 Aug 2011 | 8:44 AM ET Text Size By: Jeff Cox
CNBC.com Staff Writer

The apparent deal to extend the debt ceiling is "fantastic" for President Barack Obama but a "joke" for the rest of the country, real estate magnate Donald Trump said.

Speaking as Washington politicians move closer to approving a deal that would give the US another $2.1 trillion in borrowing authority, the colorful businessman and TV personality said the nation is tinkering while losing even more ground to China.

In all, Trump said in a CNBC interview, the weeks-long squabble is another black eye for America.

"Eventually you have to balance the budget. This is a long way from balancing the budget," he said. "This is just a joke. This is a down payment at most."

Trump has toyed with the idea of running for president and has been a harsh critic of Obama. However, he said the president did manage to score a political victory during the debt debate, removing an issue that had the potential to derail his run for a second term next year.

Beyond that, he said, Obama is incompetent.

"When I say incompetent, he's competent in getting elected and re-elected, but as far as running the country, he's incompetent," Trump said.

In addition to making another broadside at Obama, Trump repeated his worries that the US continues to fall behind China in terms of infrastructure, manufacturing and education.

"China is eating our lunch," he said. "Our country is going down and going down fast."


RELATED LINKS
Current DateTime: 07:15:55 01 Aug 2011
LinksList Documentid: 43969657
Trump: I May Run for President if Economy Stays Bad

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43969198/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:23 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
Nice complaining from liberals who don't believe we need to balance the budget in the first place and from a businessman whose own businesses have had to declare bankruptcy before.

I am very ticked about all the complaining on both sides. And I can't believe that Bachman is still voting "no." I almost can't believe Romney, the finance guy, is voting against it, but I reminded myself he would sell his soul for a vote so maybe it's not so surprising after all.

Maybe somebody who supports anyone who says "no" can answer this question I posed yesterday.

Quote:
Quick question for anyone who feels like answering. Let's say that your family is in the situation in which you are cash-poor, have thousands of dollars in mortgage and other monthly expenses and need to borrow to make ends meet. You want to get to be in a position in which you have a balanced budget, even if it means downsizing your house and selling your car. You've decided that you will not incur anymore debt as a family. But, reality is that you're not going to be able to sell your house and buy a new one immediately - at least several mortgage payments are going to be due before that can happen. You need to borrow from a credit line in order to pay the mortgage for the time between now and the time you can sell your house and buy a more affordable one. How do you respond to this? Do you:

a) Decide that you won't dip into the credit any more, no matter what happens, even if it means that you will miss the mortgage payments that are due between now and the time that you will be able to sell your current house and buy a new one. By choosing this option, you will in effect have a balanced budget right now. You will not be using credit. But, on the down side, you will damage your credit rating which will make you effectively unable to qualify for a new home and even have trouble getting a new apartment. But, your buddies assure you, you have indeed stuck to your principles of "fiscal responsibility" because you're not charging any more debt.

b) Decide that you will do the thing that you've said you want to get away with - borrow money - for as long as you need to in order to be able to sell the current house and then adjust your life so that your monthly bills are within your budget. You are borrowing for now, but, eventually, you will be debt free and you will preserve a good credit rating and a good name.

Which option would you choose? By the way, if you choose option b), you're a liberal and have broken your no-debt pledge (joking).

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:10 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Well, I don't directly qualify to answer your question, but I can pass on some proof that the TEA Party (at least in so far as Rand Paul can be said to represent the TEA Party) is more or less arguing for your option (b)
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-h ... aul-leave-

One does not have to fully agree with them to recognize that the TEA Party's perspective has been seriously distorted & misrepresented by the media. Look at what Rand Paul is actually saying in the interview linked above vs. the following sampling of media coverage (notice how Rand Paul's interviewer cannot make sense of Paul's answers because they do not fit into the preconceived ideas similar to those below that the interviewer has already made about him):

Quote:
4:55 PM EDT, Monday August 1, 2011

Media Reality Check. “The Liberal Media Empire Strikes Back; During Month-Long Debt Talks, Liberal Media Savaged Tea Party Conservatives as Ignorant, Irrational, Irresponsible and Even Terrorists”

Below is the text of a Media Reality Check, researched and written by the MRC’s Research Director, Rich Noyes, which was posted earlier today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Liberal Media Empire Strikes Back
During Month-Long Debt Talks, Liberal Media Savaged Tea Party Conservatives as Ignorant, Irrational, Irresponsible and Even Terrorists

For the past month, as the debt talks slogged on in Washington, the so-called mainstream media unleashed increasingly hysterical attacks on the Tea Party and anti-tax hike conservatives — epitomizing the liberal elite’s supreme annoyance at the push to curb federal spending and contain the size of government.

The media’s disdainful language has ranged from the merely condescending (wondering whether the Tea Partiers in Congress actually knew how things worked, or referring to them as children), to outright hostile (likening the Tea Party to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups). Here are some of the choicer examples MRC has collected over the past 30 days:


Just a Bunch of Ignorant Boobs

“Do you think that Republicans – particularly those in the freshman class over in the House – understand just how serious this debt limit crisis is?...Do you think they understand what might happen if you can’t raise this debt limit here?”
— Bob Schieffer to Senator Jon Kyl on Face the Nation, July 24.

“The question, I think, some people might be asking is, do you think that members of the Tea Party caucus know how to govern, or are they — do they understand that standing up for a cause is not the same as governing?”
— Co-host Ann Curry to Tom Brokaw on NBC’s Today, August 1.


Tea Party = Irresponsible Children

“On one side are those kids in the back seat, Tea Party members of Congress and their stay-at-home blogging cheerleaders who either don’t understand or don’t care about the consequences of default — of the U.S. not meeting its obligations, of us looking like a joke. They’re willing to risk calamity, even embrace it, just to show how dedicated they are to not raising the debt ceiling. On the other side are Democrats and some Republicans who understand this is not a game.”
— Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 14.

“Some people say that the Republican Party has been held hostage by the Tea Party. One of our Facebook followers sent in an interesting analogy and said, ‘Why are Republicans allowing freshman congressmen to control this debate?’ and this person said, ‘It’s like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget.’ I mean, there’s some truth in that.”
— Moderator Bob Schieffer to GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell on Face the Nation, July 31.


Conservatives Are Unhinged Lunatics

“The Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms....The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency....The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name.”
— New York Times columnist David Brooks, July 5.

“You can hear the alarm going off, in this case the debt ceiling, which rational people agree needs to be raised, and yet every day there’s no deal.”
— Brian Williams on the July 26 NBC Nightly News.


Tea Party = Extremists

“Watching the extraordinary polarization in Washington today, many people have pointed the finger at the Tea Party. It’s ideologically extreme, refuses to compromise, and cares more about purity than problem solving. I happen to agree with much of that critique, but it doesn’t really answer the question, why has the Tea Party become so prominent? Why is it able to dominate Washington?”
— CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on his Fareed Zakaria GPS, July 24.

Howard Fineman: “What’s going on here, as I see it, is a kind of slow motion secession. This is an ending of the social compact. This is two, three generations worth of agreement about Social Security, about Medicare, about the role of the federal government. The Tea Party people are saying, we want to secede from that society....”
Chris Matthews: “You know what this sounds like? You know what this sounds like? When I spent two years in Southern Africa. It sounds like what the whites talked about doing. Eventually going into some sort of little circle, like Custer’s last stand against the United States.”
— MSNBC’s Hardball, July 25.


Stubborn and Difficult

“I think the frustration the President has, is ‘Look, I’ve come three-quarters the way to your position, and you’re not willing to give me that last 25 percent that I can use to say to Democrats there is something in this for you.’ So I think the intransigence of the Republicans is really beginning to wear on him and just strikes him as more and more unreasonable.”
— New York Times White House correspondent Mark Landler in a podcast for the paper’s “The Caucus” political blog posted July 15.

“A lot of folks are saying the current, you know, ‘My way or the highway, gotta have it all’ climate in Washington is really unworthy of the USA and makes us look like a banana republic.”
— CNN Newsroom anchor Brooke Baldwin, July 19.

“The Tea Party freshmen, upon whom all of this is being laid, really, who say compromise is a dirty word — are they complicating the picture?”
— Christiane Amanpour on ABC’s This Week, July 24.



Hostage-Takers and Terrorists

“The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to risk bringing down the whole country in the service of their anti-tax ideology....These people are willing to go right into Armageddon, not face the warning signs. Go right off the cliff...”
— Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 5.

Salon’s Joan Walsh: “These people, the Tea Partiers and their friends and their enablers and their corporate friends like Dick Armey, they have created this shrieking on the right....This game of chicken, in particular, is deadly and it’s wrong and it’s hostage-taking. And you shouldn’t negotiate with hostage-takers.”
Host Chris Matthews: “I agree with you. I agree with you. I agree. It’s terrorism.”
— MSNBC’s Hardball, July 5.

Pat Buchanan: “They [conservatives] say, ‘This is the wrong way to go. We don’t believe in it. We’ve committed against it. We can’t do it, Mr. President, you’re asking us to break our word and do something we think is not going to work, and we’re not going to do it, sir.’”...
Co-host Mika Brzezinski: “So, I think the, what was the answer to my question that who the hostage taker is, Willie?”
MSNBC’s Willie Geist: “Sounds like Pat’s boys. Pat’s boys are holding the hostage.”
Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown: “I think they’re the suicide bombers in all of this.”
— MSNBC’s Morning Joe, July 6.

“Wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists....The blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home....So let’s remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let’s also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots.”
— New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, July 24.

“If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the GOP on a suicide mission.”
— New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, July 27.


END Reprint of August 1 Media Reality Check


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
Obviously, the media is generally liberal and often biased. So, sometimes, pundits say things that are quite opinionated and even prejudicial. No argument there.

But, I've heard a lot of self-proclaimed conservatives say over and over again that they would not raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid default under any circumstances. I've heard it with my own ears, apart from any comments that any media personalities may have added to the mix. People like Michelle Bachman openly scoffed at the possibility that we would default if we didn't raise the debt ceiling - despite, in my opinion, pretty clear evidence that we spend a lot more than we take in and that we have immediate bills that we won't have money to pay without borrowing. Others acknowledged that we would possibly default if we didn't raise the debt ceiling but didn't seem to be willing to do anything to prevent it unless every one of their conditions were made. And sometimes not even then.

Going back to my scenario:
Quote:
Quick question for anyone who feels like answering. Let's say that your family is in the situation in which you are cash-poor, have thousands of dollars in mortgage and other monthly expenses and need to borrow to make ends meet. You want to get to be in a position in which you have a balanced budget, even if it means downsizing your house and selling your car. You've decided that you will not incur anymore debt as a family. But, reality is that you're not going to be able to sell your house and buy a new one immediately - at least several mortgage payments are going to be due before that can happen. You need to borrow from a credit line in order to pay the mortgage for the time between now and the time you can sell your house and buy a more affordable one. How do you respond to this? Do you:

a) Decide that you won't dip into the credit any more, no matter what happens, even if it means that you will miss the mortgage payments that are due between now and the time that you will be able to sell your current house and buy a new one. By choosing this option, you will in effect have a balanced budget right now. You will not be using credit. But, on the down side, you will damage your credit rating which will make you effectively unable to qualify for a new home and even have trouble getting a new apartment. But, your buddies assure you, you have indeed stuck to your principles of "fiscal responsibility" because you're not charging any more debt.

b) Decide that you will do the thing that you've said you want to get away with - borrow money - for as long as you need to in order to be able to sell the current house and then adjust your life so that your monthly bills are within your budget. You are borrowing for now, but, eventually, you will be debt free and you will preserve a good credit rating and a good name.


Here's a pseudo-paraphrasing of what I heard way too many self-described conservative elected officials say in response to this scenario, played out in our debt ceiling crisis:

Q: Are you going to extend the line of credit so that your mortgage gets paid until you can sell your house and restructure your expenses?

A: I am opposed to the use of consumer credit and the type of overspending that so many Americans have fallen victim to. I cannot in good conscience continue to borrow money that I don't have.

Q: So, you are going to miss your $1,000 mortgage payment next month as a result. Are you willing to do this?

A: Well, I hope that doesn't happen. In fact, I'm not positive that the mortage is actually due next month and I may have some money in the cookie jar that may help me to pay these types of obligations. But it's important that I stand my ground and not continue to go deeper into debt.

Q: But if you don't borrow the money, there is a chance that you will be late on your mortgage and your credit rating will be damaged, which will make it more expensive to eventually refinance and restructure your debt.

A: Well, I understand that that could be a possibility, but, I think that it's very important to hold on to my principles and not go deeper into debt.

(Aftermath ... the homeowner who refuses to borrow in order to pay their already-established mortgage debt does default and has their credit rating damaged. Then they place all the blame on the banking industry for helping to put them in this position).

I just, for the life of me, am having the hardest time understanding the logic of allowing the country to go into default unless the ultimate solutions to this country's financial problems (which I believe DOES include a Balanced Budget Amendment) are immediately implemented. It just simply doesn't make sense.

I also believe that some of the "no" votes from self-described conservatives came from some people whose first priority was not being on record voting for anything but the perfect bill. I think that if this is the case, the motive for that is probably political more than anything else.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:41 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
If I ever got into such a situation due to totally irresponsible, immoral actions; as well as the economic stupidity exhibited by all those who a few years back were saying how sound the economy was and that deficits don't matter.....
If my clearly wrong and immoral actions led to such a predicament, and not things such as medical bills, unexpected job loss, etc...
Then my situation would be much like your scenario and you know what??
I would deserve to lose my home. Maybe the strong medicine would be what I needed
to once again behave morally and not like the Government and the minions running it.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY