House GOP had no problem with a $23 trillion debt a few months ago

[blueapplepaste]

Pages 5 and 6 of the budget resolution declare that the "appropriate levels of debt" subject to the debt ceiling are as follows:

Fiscal year 2012: $16,204,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,177,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,955,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,704,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,513,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $20,257,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,981,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,711,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $22,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $23,105,000,000,000.

As far as I could tell, no amendments were offered to reduce the levels of spending outlined in the budget to hold that level of debt at or below $14.3 trillion. So, I guess that means Republicans won't object to raising the current debt ceiling within the next few weeks so that the federal government can honor the commitments it has already made?

Seems the Republicans aren't really serious about fiscal responsibility. So many are screaming how we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling and doing so is a terrible idea. Yet every single House GOP are on record supporting a plan that would raise the debt by $9 trillion dollars over the next 10 years to over $23 trillion. I wonder how they plan to do that w/o raising the debt ceiling.


Do House Republicans realize they just endorsed a higher debt limit? - latimes.com

 

[Ringo84]

Seems the Republicans aren't really serious about fiscal responsibility.

I've been more and more convinced of that as I've continued to watch them over the past couple of years.

They'll pick up the mantle of "fiscal conservatism" as long as it benefits them, and then completely scrap it once they get into power (see also: "job, jobs, jobs").
Ringo

 

[blueapplepaste]

I've been more and more convinced of that as I've continued to watch them over the past couple of years.

They'll pick up the mantle of "fiscal conservatism" as long as it benefits them, and then completely scrap it once they get into power (see also: "job, jobs, jobs").
Ringo

Indeed. It's just laughable that they are raising such a ruckus over this, yet just a few months ago they wanted to pass a plan that would add $9 trillion in debt. It makes absolutely no sense and is beyond inconsistent. At least the Dems want to tax and spend, which I suppose is better than borrow and spend.

 

[rambot]

Obama storms out of debt talks: Republican aide - Yahoo! News


And here Eric Cantor proposes raising?

 

[Ringo84]

Obama didn't "storm out". What apparently happened was that Cantor interrupted the President as he was trying to close the meeting. Obama sharply rebuked Cantor and then exited the room.

Cantor is acting like a child. I'm embarrassed that he represents Virginia.
Ringo

 

[Wayte]

Obama didn't "storm out". What apparently happened was that Cantor interrupted the President as he was trying to close the meeting. Obama sharply rebuked Cantor and then exited the room.

Cantor is acting like a child. I'm embarrassed that he represents Virginia.
Ringo

...and even if he did storm out, I rather like the idea of the president being legitimately angry over all this political jerking around the Republicans have been doin. If there's one thing I wanna see the pres lose his self contorl over, its the future of this country.

 

[Wolseley]

...and even if he did storm out, I rather like the idea of the president being legitimately angry over all this political jerking around the Republicans have been doin. If there's one thing I wanna see the pres lose his self contorl over, its the future of this country.

And of course, the Democrats have never done any "political jerking around", on this issue or any other.

It ain't Republican vs. Democrat. It's Washington vs. the people.

 

[Wayte]

And of course, the Democrats have never done any "political jerking around", on this issue or any other.

It ain't Republican vs. Democrat. It's Washington vs. the people.

Course they've done it too. I"m not saying all, or even most of the Dems are innocent. I will, however, say that while the Dems can be rather questionable at times, the Republicans outright scare me as a party. They're social views are abhorrent, and they don't seem to udnerstand that catering to the rich will not by proxie help the lower brackets. Or they don't care, I can't tell tbh :/


And as far as Washington vs. the people....this is the people's fault. We hold the leash, we can vote these idiots out if we don't like them. But we don't, we let the dog pee where it wants then blame everybody but ourselves. If ya want to reign Washington in, you don't dismantle it; you rmeind it whos boss.

 

[Ringo84]

And of course, the Democrats have never done any "political jerking around", on this issue or any other.

I'm sure they have. But not at the expense of the country's economy and its people.
Ringo

 

[[serious]]

Seems the Republicans aren't really serious about fiscal responsibility. So many are screaming how we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling and doing so is a terrible idea. Yet every single House GOP are on record supporting a plan that would raise the debt by $9 trillion dollars over the next 10 years to over $23 trillion. I wonder how they plan to do that w/o raising the debt ceiling.


Do House Republicans realize they just endorsed a higher debt limit? - latimes.com

Was there ever a doubt? This chart tells the story better than words ever could:
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldbetang]

Was there ever a doubt? This chart tells the story better than words ever could:
National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider who controlled the legislative branch when looking at deficits and surpluses?

 

[[serious]]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider who controlled the legislative branch when looking at deficits and surpluses?

No passed congressional budget has substantially varied from the president's proposed budget in decades as I recall. I would agree that if the final congressional budget differs substantially from the president's proposed budget, the congress gets any blame/credit.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider who controlled the legislative branch when looking at deficits and surpluses?

Please remind us all how many spending bills REagan vetoed?

 

[abysmul]

Seems the Republicans aren't really serious about fiscal responsibility. So many are screaming how we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling and doing so is a terrible idea. Yet every single House GOP are on record supporting a plan that would raise the debt by $9 trillion dollars over the next 10 years to over $23 trillion. I wonder how they plan to do that w/o raising the debt ceiling.

IMHO they are fearfully just starting to listen to their constituents, of whom there are a large number screaming bloody murder at them to stop with the out of control government growth and spending.

I'd love to see every single member of all three branches of government suddenly resign so we have just a tiny chance of a fresh start.

 

[blueapplepaste]

I'd love to see every single member of all three branches of government suddenly resign so we have just a tiny chance of a fresh start.

Honestly, it really ought to be time for term limits. I think that's something that would garner a lot of support from voters on both sides of the isle.

My proposal: 5 term limits for the House, 2 term limit for the Senate. Judges retire at 75 or after 30 years of service, whatever comes first.

 

[Wolseley]

I'll go along with that.

 

[[serious]]

Term limits are good. I'd also like to see better limitations on conflicts of interest.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Please remind us all how many spending bills REagan vetoed?

I will remind you that Tip O'Neil reneged on promised spending cuts after Reagan agreed to raise taxes.

 

[blueapplepaste]

I will remind you that Tip O'Neil reneged on promised spending cuts after Reagan agreed to raise taxes.

And how many spending bills did Reagan veto?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Term limits are good. I'd also like to see better limitations on conflicts of interest.

I'd love to see publicly financed campaigns. Not sure how that would work, would essentially shut out 3rd party candidates. Maybe a spending cap on how much can be spent on a campaign? Something to level the playing field a little bit.

Though its never going to happen since SCOTUS has ruled that money = speech. Which if money does equal speech, then speech isn't really free.