House will vote next week on plan to raise debt ceiling for three months
Source: WaPo
The House will vote next week on a plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling for three months, a new strategy unveiled by Republicans at a retreat in Williamsburg, Va.
The approach is intended to defuse the threat of a near-term government default while putting pressure on the Senate to pass a budget before addressing the debt ceiling for the long term.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-to-vote-on-bill-to-raise-debt-limit-for-3-months/2013/01/18/01347aa2-6190-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html
srican69
(1,426 posts)..its out turn to stare them down
valerief
(53,235 posts)montanacowboy
(6,099 posts)Bullshit - and then do this all over AGAIN?
time to stop this shit once and for all - remember the Pres said he was NOT negotiating on this again
NO NO NO NO and HELL NO
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)Do you mean time for a balanced budget? If the budget were in balance, this is a non-issue and the republicans could not hold the debt ceiling over everyones heads. Keep adding $1 trillion to the debt each year = keep playing politics on this issue and playing this game.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Look at the record.
You can see a graph at this website.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see on the graph above (get it on your smartphone [#app info]), the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply-siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased. Twenty years in a row can't be just an accident, but to understand you need to learn the voodoo strategy. (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
. . . .
Bush senior fought against supply-side debt, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics. G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply-siders are in full control of the Republican party.
What about Obama? Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush's last two budget years. Obama's debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008but that had little to do with his choices.
Recessions cut tax revenuesin this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that's over.
. . . .
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Republicans have snowed a lot of Americans with blather about deficits and unbalanced budgets. The truth is that the Republicans failed to respond to the growth of the deficit during Republican administrations and failed to balance the budget when they were in the White House. Note that Clinton's policies were building a budget surplus.
In particular, George W. Bush cut taxes in a way that was especially generous to his wealthy supporters and then fought two wars on borrowed money.
Now the Republicans want the Obama administration to clean up the Republican-made mess. Typical of the country-club set. They are masters at getting other people to clean up the messes they created.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)That's going to inspire confidence in our country and economy.
Morons.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Republicans like to make a big deal about uncertainty and how that causes businesses to put on hold decisions for expansion, etc. and their response is to create the uncertainty they so profess to despise. This makes no sense on any level so why are they doing this.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Every man is the same, we all shit behind our heals, put our pants on one leg at a time etc but this President has done the wrong thing to them and that is be elected President while being Black. If you can't see that then, well one would have to be blind
Its called RACISM
racism
n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other races
2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another
race [syn: racism, racialism, racial discrimination]
-- From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)
67 Moby Thesaurus words for "racism":
Anglophobia, Jim Crow, Jim Crow law, Russophobia, abhorrence,
abomination, anti-Semitism, antipathy, apartheid, aversion, bias,
bigotry, black power, black supremacy, chauvinism,
class consciousness, class distinction, class hatred,
class prejudice, class war, color bar, color line, despitefulness,
detestation, discrimination, dislike, execration, fascism, hate,
hatred, illiberality, know-nothingism, loathing, male chauvinist,
malevolence, malice, malignity, minority prejudice, misandry,
misanthropy, misogyny, odium, one-sidedness, partiality, prejudice,
race hatred, race prejudice, race snobbery, racial discrimination,
racialism, red-baiting, repugnance, segregation,
sex discrimination, sexism, social barrier, social discrimination,
spite, spitefulness, superpatriotism, ultranationalism, unfairness,
vials of hate, vials of wrath, white power, white supremacy,
xenophobia
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)We can't continually debate decided law and offer more kick the can time wasters.
We need the JOBS bill. We have a country to rebuild!
No more obstruction!
BlueNoteSpecial
(141 posts)...or is this method of running a budget, with it's slight of hand "we passed it, but we may not pay for it, unless we get what we want" declaration, reckless, unethical, wasteful, and quite possibly a willing breach of the Oath of Office they swore to, so help them? Is this not grounds for motion(s) to censure, resulting in votes of no confidence? Is it just me? I think not.
Rhiannon12866
(205,927 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Fuck that shit.