KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 <sigh> CNN Thingy FOX Thingy I especially like this part of the article on FOX: The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity — the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations Ummm...no...they forgot one other alternative: CUTTING SPENDING!! This is also priceless: Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses. "When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch." Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. <sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 (edited) Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. 632106[/snapback] From the CNN article... No Democrats voted for raising the debt limit, leaving Republicans with casting the politically-difficult vote in favor of increased borrowing. The Dems are clearly not without fault for spending, but at least they didn't rubber-stamp raising the debt limit. Edit: No mention of that little fact in the FOX article, though. Edited March 16, 2006 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 <sigh> CNN Thingy FOX Thingy I especially like this part of the article on FOX: Ummm...no...they forgot one other alternative: CUTTING SPENDING!! This is also priceless: Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. <sigh> 632106[/snapback] You'd be surprised, this Congress is a rubberstamp and there are plenty of cost cutting measures that could be implemented including cutting the number of politicals hired. Check out the plum book and compare to previous admins, Bush has a lot more of them and is paying out a lot more. An easy budget cut, they are getting tired anyway just ask GOP operatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. 632106[/snapback] And who sets the budget that is rubber-stamped by the Republican controlled Congress? If Bush didn't like the spending, he could veto spending bills. If the Republican Congress didn't like the deficits, they could cut spending. The Democrats don't have any control of the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 And who sets the budget that is rubber-stamped by the Republican controlled Congress?632118[/snapback] Congress. Have you ever compared a budget -any budget - the White House sends over with what Congress eventually passes? They tend to be only superficially similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 And who sets the budget that is rubber-stamped by the Republican controlled Congress? If Bush didn't like the spending, he could veto spending bills. If the Republican Congress didn't like the deficits, they could cut spending. The Democrats don't have any control of the budget. 632118[/snapback] There are no Democrats in Congress? You might want to check that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 From the CNN article... The Dems are clearly not without fault for spending, but at least they didn't rubber-stamp raising the debt limit. Edit: No mention of that little fact in the FOX article, though. 632108[/snapback] I have no problem with them voting against raising the limit. That is a good thing. Of course, their usual solution is to raise taxes instead. That is a bad thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I long for a fiscal conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 You'd be surprised, this Congress is a rubberstamp and there are plenty of cost cutting measures that could be implemented including cutting the number of politicals hired. Check out the plum book and compare to previous admins, Bush has a lot more of them and is paying out a lot more. An easy budget cut, they are getting tired anyway just ask GOP operatives. 632115[/snapback] Yes, it is an easy budget cut, but what is that compared to the entire budget? Without seeing the numbers, I am guessing a small percentage. It is a start. They could make small cuts in every department, still provide the same services and make an impact in the overall budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 <sigh> CNN Thingy FOX Thingy I especially like this part of the article on FOX: Ummm...no...they forgot one other alternative: CUTTING SPENDING!! This is also priceless: Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. <sigh> 632106[/snapback] Fair enough but the Republican Party controls congress, both Houses and the President has been able, with few notable exceptions, to control them. The executive has been able to play a pretty major role in terms of the budget. I note that he hasn't vetoed anything. I don't think congress, either party, can escape responsibility for the budget mess but neither should the President. If there are budget hawks in either party, they are MIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Congress. Have you ever compared a budget -any budget - the White House sends over with what Congress eventually passes? They tend to be only superficially similar. 632137[/snapback] Doesn't the President "pass" it too when he signs it into law and refrains from using his veto power? It's easy to send over a budget leaving out what you know they will put back in. Thus you pay no political price for withholding pork from your pork addicted constituency nor shoulder blame for the irresponsible spending it represents. It is smart politics to be sure but shouldn't be mistaken for anything but that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Fair enough but the Republican Party controls congress, both Houses and the President has been able, with few notable exceptions, to control them. The executive has been able to play a pretty major role in terms of the budget. I note that he hasn't vetoed anything. I don't think congress, either party, can escape responsibility for the budget mess but neither should the President. If there are budget hawks in either party, they are MIA. 632255[/snapback] ...and at no point did I excuse any party nor the President. All are equally responsible. Hell, this was the main focal point of my Presidential campaign, blasting Bush and the Republicans and Democrats for out of control spending. Both parties have absolutely no regard for the taxpayer's hard-earned money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Doesn't the President "pass" it too when he signs it into law and refrains from using his veto power? No...maybe. Maybe just a little one, since Congress has the ability quibble over line items, but the executive has to accept or reject it as a whole, so when Congress spends a few billion dollars on a de facto jobs program by ordering six new ships that the Navy doesn't even want (which actually happened in the FY06 budget), the president's choice is to accept the extra billions Congress tacks on, or shut down the entire government (as I recall Clinton did...which I supported.) And although it would provide an effective check to Congressional budgetary stupidity, don't think for a minute I'm advocating the line-item veto. I'm not. The solution isn't to give the executive power to quibble over line items with Congress, the solution is for Congress to stop adding stupid sh-- to the budget. As long as Congress can keep padding the budget line-item by line-item but the executive has to address it as a whole, Congress has to take the lion's share of the blame. It's easy to send over a budget leaving out what you know they will put back in. Thus you pay no political price for withholding pork from your pork addicted constituency nor shoulder blame for the irresponsible spending it represents. It is smart politics to be sure but shouldn't be mistaken for anything but that. 632262[/snapback] Except that in practical terms, the budget the White House sends over is little more than a set of suggestions compiled into a wish-list. It has about the same authority as one. The budget isn't a budget until Congress gets done with it. That has nothing to do with partisanship, that's simply how things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Except that in practical terms, the budget the White House sends over is little more than a set of suggestions compiled into a wish-list. It has about the same authority as one. The budget isn't a budget until Congress gets done with it. That has nothing to do with partisanship, that's simply how things work. 632356[/snapback] Yep, but it is the Presidents prerogative to excute the passed appropriations bills and with a little intelligence and political maneuvering you can save a lot of funds. Clinton did it masterfully, delaying spending on projects, cutting staff and limiting political appointees. Ken said it doesn't do much, but if only marginal spending changes are made it creates a ripple effect and saves a lot of money. Delay taught us that! Cutting taxes is overrated especially for the rich, middle class and poor tax cuts have a greater impact on stimulating the economy. Tax cuts for the rich by and large cause more capital flight and a larger deficit and debt raising resulting interest rates and thus slowing down the economy. Tax cuts for the middle class are expensive, but I know where to get $400 billion! Eliminate that joke of p-drug medicare benefit that ended up raising drug costs eating up the fed contribution in a give-away to those needy insurance and drug companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Well, here is the problem. Congress is out of control with spending. One would think fiscal conservatives would want to correct this. But apparently the promise of that is solely enough, and important enough, that they dont actually want to do it, or they lose a campaign issue. Democrats are being too short-sighted (shocking i know). And they only care about what will win votes in november, not what is best for the conutry. With the issue the way it was, they HAD to vote to increase the debt limit. Anything else is unsatisfactory. It had to be done. Lets assume you were using your credit card to pay your mortgage. You manage to pay your credit card bill every month and, other than excessive debt, you have a stellar credit report score. This works great for a while. But eventually you are up against your limit. You have no further cash. Correcting your spending habbits are paramount. But what you really need, short term (very short term) is a credit line increase so you dont hurt your credit (and lose your house) and can stay on your feet long enough to correct the problem. Same thing is happening here. We needed to increase the debt limit. It had to happen. HOWEVER, we need to take IMMEDIATE action to ensure the problem is corrected. I dont have faith in congress to do this, but damaging the "full faith and credit of the united states" to make a point is not worth it. I would love to stand up and make a statement in the november elections, but I live in VA and my senators are not the problem...nor is my representative (anymore...used to be the AWFUL Bobby Scott). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 <sigh> CNN Thingy FOX Thingy I especially like this part of the article on FOX: Ummm...no...they forgot one other alternative: CUTTING SPENDING!! This is also priceless: Hey Harry and other Dems...Congress controls spending, not the President. <sigh> 632106[/snapback] Now you stop that. If not, I am going to tell the mods of this board on you and then you'll really be in trouble mister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 There are no Democrats in Congress? You might want to check that. 632166[/snapback] Check the numbers. Not enough Democrats to bring bills to the floor or vote a bill up or down without some Republicans crossing over. So whatever is passed or not is the responsibility of the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 What happened to vetoing a bill, or paygo I think was a 90's termonoligy. Cut taxes and yet increase spending, howbout cut taxes and decrease spending. National debt, whats the numbers on that now, 8 trillion , one day vinny goin to want his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Check the numbers. Not enough Democrats to bring bills to the floor or vote a bill up or down without some Republicans crossing over. So whatever is passed or not is the responsibility of the Republicans. 633010[/snapback] Again with the excuses. You and Avenger must be related. The sign of effective leaders is to get people to support your ideas. So, I guess that you are saying that the Democrats are completely ineffective leaders because they cannot get votes outside of their party. Therefore, there is no reason to vote for them. The vote was 52-48. 3 votes to change things. How pathetic is the party that cannot get three votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Again with the excuses. You and Avenger must be related. The sign of effective leaders is to get people to support your ideas. So, I guess that you are saying that the Democrats are completely ineffective leaders because they cannot get votes outside of their party. Therefore, there is no reason to vote for them. The vote was 52-48. 3 votes to change things. How pathetic is the party that cannot get three votes. 633112[/snapback] That's funny, blaming the minority party for a lack of leadership. How about how pathetic that the supposed 'conservative' marjority party had 52 senators vote for this bill, and the supposed 'conservative' president doesn't oppose it. And I think the Democrats would do much better with more dynamic leaders than Reid and Pelosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts