You Sir could be the most useless member of Congress out of the entire lot! You fight staunchly against raising the debt limit without vast cut to spending while lambasting the President but them in the DAMN DAY you want to give away the power of the Legislative branch to the President?
"McConnell also gave details of what he called his “backup plan” if the two sides fail to reach an agreement. Under the proposal, Congress would change the rules surrounding the debt limit for the remainder of Obama’s first term.
That measure would create a new legal structure authorizing the president to raise the debt limit by as much as $2.5 trillion in three installments. The first, an increase of $700 billion, would come immediately. The next two, worth $900 billion each, would come this fall and sometime next summer.
On each occasion, Obama would be required to submit to Congress an explicit request for an increase, along with a menu of proposed spending cuts equal to the requested increase. The submission of the president’s first request would automatically raise the debt limit by $100 billion to give the Treasury Department breathing room while Congress considers the request.
Lawmakers would then have 15 days to pass a resolution of disapproval, giving them an opportunity to go on record against raising the debt ceiling. But Obama could veto the resolution, and the debt limit would then rise, providing that at least 34 Democratic senators stood firm in upholding his veto.
McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for spending cuts to be enacted. Aides said lawmakers could pick and choose from the president’s list when they put together appropriations bills in a separate process."
A. "remainder of Obama’s first term" - No power government ever gives itself is ever temporary.
B. " But Obama could veto the resolution, and the debt limit would then rise, providing that at least 34 Democratic senators stood firm in upholding his veto." - For Congress to over ride his veto they would need a 2/3 vote, and in today's politicized world party members just don't vote against the party anymore.
The Republican party should vote to censure you, as you clearly have let your better years slip past you and are now wallowing in senility. Please good back to the great State of Kentucky and sip Jack and Cokes on your back porch, the Nation would be better off if you where drunk and stupid all by yourself, instead of being drunk and stupid while leading the Senate (Harry Reid has been neutered).
I would rather default on the debt (which I don't think is a good idea) than give the President the ability to just spend as he chooses. We have checks and balances for a reason, things like this should be sounding alarms that neither party gives a rats ass about The People. We will continue this slow decline to stupidity until there is no other option but a 3rd Party. It's a shame we will have to slam headfirst into the wall before we figure this out.
...things like this should be sounding alarms that neither party gives a rats ass about The People.
For the past 65 years neither the Moonbats nor the Wingnuts have given any thought at all to the welfare of the Great Unwashed beyond winning the next popularity contest. The odd third party candidate isn't any better.
Handing the Office of the President more authority is a huge mistake. The President should have less authority, not more.
The news media isn't doing a good job of explaining this situation. Using the analogy of a nuclear family, since the family members cannot agree on just who should pay off what portion of the monthly credit card invoice, they propose to get a cash advance on the credit card to make their monthly minimum payment. They also propose to raise the limit on the credit card.
While most people will see that this won't work, when confronted with the only other alternative (reduce spending), they scream and throw a fit, taking the family back to square one. Meantime, the clock keeps ticking and the interest/vigorish continues to mount up.
I say that if the family can't come to an agreement, we solve this problem by ignoring the credit card company right along with the collection agency. What are they going to do? Scream bloody murder? Malign us in front of our 'friends'? Screw 'em.
As a final note, I've included a link at the bottom that will explain how to use an anchor tag for those of us who write well and have solid, well-grounded ideas but whose prose is a little hard on the eyes due to unformatted links.
Here's the link.
Larry Kudlow-- The American People Versus The Establishment
As the congressional negotiators negotiate with President Obama, we the taxpaying public have no idea what they're cooking up on 2012 spending. It could be a worthwhile reduction or not. Out-year-discretionary decreases and small entitlement cuts for 2019 to 2021 are simply not reliable or credible. Congresses change. Deals are broken. Outcomes are, well, kind of like a scam.
And the public is on to this. The highly accurate IBD/TIPP pollsters have just released an incredible result. Get this: The public rejects a debt-ceiling increase by a huge 58 to 36 percent. That includes 59 percent of independents and even 38 percent of Democrats.
If we have to borrow from the Chinese because Obama can not gaurantee that August social security checks will go out, it is time to end that fraud once and for all.
We need allow for people to opt out of social security. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay the Chinese because some politican stole all the money the seniors have paid in.
This whole issue about the debt ceiling is ridiculous. They are potentially risking the trust that millions all around the world have in the US government for their loans, bonds, mortgages, etc. and yesterday they were bickering over light bulb mandates? Is this really going on?
And the saddest part is that neither party is to blame, and no one wants to compromise. We don't need a higher debt ceiling, we need to control the spending that has been out of control for the past 30 years. No Administration or Congress since then has got it right. Both parties, as corporate stooges, have failed miserably to do any proper housekeeping. Where is this country headed if this trend continues?
How many more foreclosures will there be if mortgage rates jump? How many people will lose their jobs/businesses if no one can cash a check issued by the US? This is a horribly scary question and no one wants to talk about it. Maybe I should start learning French now so I can get on the fast track to Canadian citizenship.
Actually, if you take the Republican plan of being nothing but cuts and the Democratic plan of being nothing but revenue increases, then Obama’s plan was the compromise with 83% spending cuts and 17% revenue increase with the 17% being made up of closing loopholes that affect corporate jet owners and the like.
And the saddest part is that both parties are to blame
I know I'm old fashioned but I believe when you sign your name to something you should stand behind your promise. Our government obligated us to this debt, it's not the honorable thing to do in walking away from it and give the bird to our creditors. Unfortunately we have waited so long that I don't think there is time to cut spending before it's time to pay the Visa bill. They played cluster f&*k with the football so long, that they ran the clock down to 25 seconds and we have to go 80 yards down field to score. (Yes I can't wait for college football). I believe it was part of the plan the whole time, they have know about this for over a year.
MrG if you where unable to be a good keeper of the money you have been GIVEN, why would I reward you with more borrowing power. Squander, squander, squander till it's make or brake time, then start instilling fear (no Soc Sec checks, no govt services, rivers of blood) in the serfs about end of the world scenarios. Sounds mysteriously like a "bank bailout" to me.
If the 17% revenue (taxes) where to go to strictly to paying off the debt than I would be behind it 110% Any steps we take in stripping to tax code of "loopholes" and getting closer to a flat tax is always something I would be behind. If that 17% was to be collected and by the States and distributed by the States for projects to help these States I would also be behind it. But to send more money to Washington for them to piss away is a non-starter. I don't care if it comes from the rich or the poor, the only way to beat the beast is to starve it.