It says Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States, but only to exercise the specific duties of the Congress.

Promote the General Welfare does not mean Provide the General Welfare, which is what we are doing.

I do not thing you guys really whish to solve the problem. I do not think you would care to see the budget in balance for the sake of people who live on the government. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like you without the foresight to see we not only need to balance the budget, we have to pay back $14T in debt.

Watch this:
Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum
Agreed

I'm not sure I follow you Alex. Please explain.

I totally agree with you that the US Government is not a charity and should not be providing services such as a charity would. People like to argue that the government should do something because it is good. But just because it is good, does not mean the government should be doing it or is authorized to do it.

However, stimulating the economy by building infrastructure to keep us competitive with the rest of the world is NOT "providing general welfare."



Just because I disagree with the zealots in the tea party and do not see any logic whatsoever in handcuffing the government by passing an ill-conceived amendment to the constitution, DOES NOT MEAN that I am against solving the problem.

My politics are determined by about 3 or 4 core beliefs. One of those is fiscal conservatism. I've been preaching about our spending problem for 20 years.... a LOT longer than it has been "en vogue."

My take on your opinion, and those like you, is that you have a narrow view on how to solve the problem and it will do nothing but cause more problems. It already has. This debt ceiling debacle which has caused our credit rating to drop will cost the US more in increased interest costs than those spending cuts.

You need to build a bridge over a canyon before you can drive across it. Your "solutions" are akin to just driving off the cliff.

Just read this and thought it had some very good points, from a very neutral observer. It came from the Sydney Morning Herald. I highlighted a couple of points. One from each side. Both are very true.





Full article:

That didn't work out so well the last time we tried it...



The problem here is that if you don't put something in place that forces the government to be fiscally responsible, the government will not become fiscally responsible.

People talk about tax increases but what usually happens when taxes increase is that politicians (particularly liberal ones) find new things to spend that money on



Actually, Ross Perot made it en vogue back in 1992.

S&P came out and specifically said that they downgraded the U.S. because they were looking for $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years and the plan that was passed didn't meet that requirement.

The author doesn't know what he is talking about.



He isn't the president that repealed Glass-Steagall.



A neutral source, degs? Seriously?

As I posted elsewhere, the CBO estimated that if unemployment had remained around 5% in 2008, the deficit would have been $189 billion rather than $1.3 trillion.

The growing deficit is caused primarily by less revenue via less people paying taxes because they don't have jobs coupled with the increase in spending (unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare) that this causes.



Definitely not one of Bush's finest moments, coupled with NCLB.

Actually they included the inability of our government to work in any reasonable fashion at the top of their list of reasons why they did the downgrade. You should check your facts.



Hmmm... he's not a dem, he's not a republican. His shots at Obama are equally as harsh. What's your issue with that?



However, it didn't. Let's deal with what did happen.



Definitely not one of Bush's finest moments, coupled with NCLB.[/quote]

Here we are in complete agreement.

Perot got people talking. Then it died down for 15+ years. Where were the fiscal conservatives on the Medicare drug program, or the two unfunded wars?

I've never stopped having it be one of my top political motivators.

Rich,

This is directly from the S&P explaining their downgrade. They have 2 points directly blaming our policymakers inability "in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy"

Why is what you highlighted automatically attributed to the conservatives in the House? Ever consider the fact that the Senate won't pass anything the House came up with a major contributor that the liberal majority wants to carry on with business as usual?

Because they are the ones who brought everything to a complete halt. They wouldn't vote for anything that represented a compromise. Even when the head of their party (not movement), worked out a deal with the other side.

Time was against all of us. Inaction would lead to serious problems. And still they created a moving target:
$2t in cuts... no, $4T
After the election.... no, we are now adding a rule that it has to be before the election
$4T in cuts... not with a penny in tax increases (we need to save those corporate jets)
$4T in cuts and no tax increases... this doesn't address Social Security

You wonder why an outsider to the movement doesn't care for the way they do business...?

Yes, the divide is what prevented the agreement to include $4 trillion. Why is that solely the responsibility of a minority faction in the House?

The divide is the root cause of why we didn't meet what S&P required. That is simply an explanation of why they weren't able to agree on $4 trillion. If they had agreed to that, we don't get downgraded. Simple as that.

S&P also said they would not have downgraded us if Cut, Cap and Balance had passed. That was the plan proposed by the "Tea Party politicians".

If they are expressing a concern with the divide over the parties, why are you automatically saying they are blaming the Tea Party (which aren't even politicians)?

Liberal Democrats were just as likely to oppose the deal because it decreased the rate of spending and did not include tax increases. Where is your blame for them?

The fact is the deal that was reached was opposed by members of both parties and supported by members of both parties.

Go look up the vote totals. I believe only 22 "Tea Party" politicians opposed the debt ceiling, and a few that did like Michelle Bachmann could afford to do so because they knew it would pass and they could go on record as opposing it because it was unpopular with their base.

No, they are the ones who proposed several different bills that the Senate wouldn't even consider...not even slight alterations with some tax reform that wouldn't require raising individual income taxes. Sorry, but you aren't as convincing as you think you are with this one.

So when John Boehner and Harry Reid had an agreement in place that Barack Obama said he would veto, the Tea Party are the ones that brought it to a complete halt?

Sell off services, land and buildings to private companies. Then in turn the government can start collecting taxes from the companies who bought the rights to the services, land and buildings without having to raise taxes and therefore provide funding for government services we do need like Defense for example, We would then be able to fund national and state defense without the need to borrow.

Isn't that what they did with the USPS?

Look, I'm trying to cut back on a few things: sugar, fried food, and political debates.

But I need to chime in here:






There seems to be trend here to ignore any blame the Tea Party (or the GOP) was given for this downgrade. On page one of this thread, I quoted from the S&P Statment, which people like to ignore.







The stubborn inability (BY THE GOP/TEA PARTY) to raise new revenues is one of the reasons for the downgrade.

You need to pay closer attention to a few things.

Firstly, the responses are being made to posts that say the Tea Party is to blame for the downgrade. If the Tea Party is to blame because they will block anything that raises taxes, why can't the same be said for the liberal wing of the Democrat Party, which wants to block anything that involves cutting (or more accurately stated, decreasing the rate of growth of) entitlements? The fact is the blame is shared, which escapes you as a liberal/Democrat, and degs who my guess has a dislike for the Tea Party because of their social conservative views.

The Tea Party is not in the majority, not even in the House, which for the most party is run by career politicians with an R next to their name.

Second, where was the bill that raised taxes anyway? It is silly for the S&P to make this statement when there was NOTHING being introduced that called for raising taxes.

There was a plan that included reforming the tax code by lowering rates and closing loopholes, which would have generated $800 billion in new revenues over 10 years, but it wasn't the Tea Party or the Republican Party that killed that idea.

It was Obama.

And there is this:





http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html

The S&P also said that if Cut, Cap and Balance had been passed, the downgrade would not have occured, so they should try to be consistent with their message...

From your same article:

The "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party has no power. Obama doesn't listen to them.

It is my belief that without the Tea Party, we could have gotten a bill that was larger in savings and it would have included revenue. I believe there were enough politicans that were willing to compromise. But, House Leadership/Senate leadership on the GOP side would not ignore the Tea Party.

Obama has no problem with ignoring the liberal side of his own base. He's done it throughout his presidency.



It doesn't matter. The S&P's reasons are their reasons. None of us like the downgrade, but if we are having a debate on why it happened, then we need to listen to their reasons, even if they are faulty.

And the GOP has made it perfectly clear: they won't vote for a bill that raises taxes. So, unlike the House, which passed bills that had no chance of becoming law, the Dems dropped it.

The GOP debate last night showed exactly what S&P was talking about in the quotes I posted: EVERY candidate said they would not support a massive trillion dollar cuts bill if there was just 10% new revenue.



More info, please.

How about an electorate that would actually vote out members of Congress who fail to do so?

Because of rigged districts, there are only so many that are actually up for grabs. This is why Congress always has a low approval rating and people want to throw them out, but they end up electing the same person anyway.

That was a tangent, but needed to be said.

That is comical since they've given us 2 years of their brilliant solutions for the economic problems. Obama and Boehner had an agreement for $3.2 trillion in cuts and $800 billion in new revenues. This would have prevented a downgrade. Because the lib wing was demanding rolling back the Bush tax cuts and Obama asked for another $400 billion in new revenues due to their clamoring, that deal fell apart.



Without the Tea Party or House Republicans, Obama would have gotten his wish. A clean raising of the debt ceiling.

What would our credit rating be under that scenario?



Then he definitely has no problem ignoring the American people... because he has definitely done that throughout his presidency.



Well there only reason wasn't the House Republicans, although that seems to be the only reason you are acknowledging.



And the GOP is right. A bill that raises taxes right now would be just as catastrophic to the economy. One of the major reasons Obama didn't rull back the Bush tax cuts even though he had a majority in both houses of congress is because his advisors were telling him that would happen.



Don't mix new revenue with tax increases. There is a distinction.



Reid and Beohner had an agreement to implement the Gang of Six plan, which was a temporary increase of the debt ceiling that would hold things together for 6 months while a larger deal was negotiated. Obama shot it down because he wanted this issue resolved before re-election time came around.

But the reality is that in the end that is what he wound up getting anyway.

They would be countered by those that make up the part of the electorate that grew up under the entitlement state that began in the 30s, expanded in the 60s and has exploded under Obama.

Too many of them don't care about sacrifice, too many just want their government to take care of the problem.

In 5 years, those will be the people rioting in the street, burning businesses and mugging citizens because the government, sooner or later, will need to implement austerity measures.

Unless we get serious about significantly decreasing the size of government now, we are looking at our future in Greece and London.

So, 3.2 Billion in cuts for the GOP and 1.2 Billion in new revenues for Dems.

Given that the GOP only controls 1/2 of 1 of the 2 forms of government in play here that is more than a fair compromise.

So, nice try.

PS: How many GOP members would have even voted for that deal? I don't think very many. But, we will never know.



Sure. I'll give them credit for getting the ball rolling. But, they went too far because they think they are supposed to get everything they want.



So does the GOP.



Nope. I simply feel this thread has downplayed or ignored the GOP side. I am more than willing to bash Obama, but my displeasure comes from a different field than yours.



Argumentative. According to conservatives, there is never a time to raise taxes.



The GOP members in the Senate threatened to filibuster anything the lame duck session did unless it got their tax cuts for the top 1%.



Sure. Do the candidates know that?



I agree with Obama. There should be no reason to play chicken with default twice in the same year.

I don't exactly know how entitlement "has exploded under Obama."

But, let me see if I have you correct, you are worried that too many people in the country like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

Too many people like it in its current form. In case you haven't noticed, people live longer and our population has grown ie more people dipping into these programs. Without more tax payers these programs in their current form are unsustainable. I don't see a lot of new taxpayers being born from theses programs.

To say Obama doesn't listen to his liberal base is ridiculous. His hand was forced by the election of Scott Brown on Obamacare and the recent takeover of the House. Otherwise he would have raised taxes and further empowered entitlement programs.

Seriously, no one is saying the Tea Party doesn't have a role in the downgrade but you're being very one sided here. The S&P has stated this downgrade was years in the making and the Tea Party is only a few years old. Liberal Democrats have just as much to do with the current state of Washington as anyone elected by the Tea Party.

I would love to have these questions answered. Did Boehner get an agreement from both Obama and Reid that if taxes were increased in the short term would the increased revenues be restricted to cutting down the defecit and not funding any new programs or growth to others? If the answer was yes, did the members of the House still refuse to accept that?

If that is the case, then I'll buy your blame game argument because that is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Well, since the population keeps expanding, there are more tax payers. Isn't the problem that people live longer and heath care keeps costing more?



Everything he has done has been some sort of compromise either with Republicans or the more moderate wing of the Democratic party.



Just as one sided as everyone else.

It's all in good fun.

By definition, if the money was going to be spent on new things or to give more money to exisiting programs, then it wouldn't be considered as cutting down the debt. That's not it. Almost every Republican has signed a pledge to not raise taxes. That is your problem.

You certain about those conclusions?

Last I checked it was a deal to increase the debt ceiling, not cut the deficit. I only recall Democrats pledging to explore what they can cut and I don't recall them promising not to increase already runaway programs. So no, its all of our problem.

Increase the debt ceiling and pay down the debt. That was the idea.

This doesn't answer my question. If the non-tax paying population, or those dipping into these programs is increasing faster than those who can pay for it...

That was the idea, but not the exact promise the left was making.

I'm pretty sure the reason why these programs are costing more is because people live longer and health care costs are going up all the time.




I don't see any evidence of this.

Its both what you pointed out and that SSI is dramatically increasing because more people are easily getting on board. Come to MA, I'll give you a personal tour of our recipients.

As for the deficit, I have seen no evidence that cuts were solidified in any bill proposed by the Senate Dems. It was only promised that they would look into it.

What do you mean?

Don't confuse Social Security with Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is paying for itself for like another 20 years.



I don't really know where you are going with this. The plan by both sides was to get cut down the national debt. Dems were not asking for more revenue to spend on something else. They were asking for money to pay down the debt.