OK, tell me again why I should vote for Republicans this year?
It is expected that after intense debate, Congress will approve an increase in the current $8.18 trillion debt limit by perhaps $781 billion.
OK, tell me again why I should vote for Republicans this year?
It is expected that after intense debate, Congress will approve an increase in the current $8.18 trillion debt limit by perhaps $781 billion.
Comments
I have no idea.
The only Party that believes in being "fiscally conservative" is The Libertarian Party.
Mike Sylvester
The way I hear it, this time the Republicans are serious about fiscal restraint. No, really, they mean it now. Guess they were just goofin' around the past 5 years.
Actually, Red-Ink Republicanism has been with us for awhile. Apologists blamed the deficits under Reagan and Bush I on Democratic Congresses, then gave credit for the reduced deficits/surpluses (depends how you count) under Clinton to the Republican Congress. But, I think the past 5 years under completely Republican control makes it clear that ballooning deficits under Republicans is no accident. They either lack restraint or subscribe to the Grover Norquist "starve the beast" theory of government limitation.
Libertarian control of Congress or the Presidency is not realistic. I think the best we can do in terms of fiscal responsibility at the federal level is gridlock. For various reasons, I think the ideal combination is a Republican House coupled with a Democratic Senate and Democratic President.
Will Rogers said, of Calvin Coolidge as president, something to the effect of, "He's like a man with a ukulele; you're never quite sure if he's playing it or just fooling around with it." I feel sort of the same way about President Bush's request for a line-item veto. I've always favored the line-item as a way to tame the budget, but since Bush has never -- not once -- used the regular veto, I'm not sure that he'd know what to do with it. Yeah -- bring on gridlock.
Or perhaps you should reword that question. Do Democrat's have any real ideas or solutions to problems such as this one? What is the alternative Mr. Reid?
That's the most discouraging part, that neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in exercising fiscal discipline. Well, actually the worst part is that we expect so much from government that we reward fiscal irresponsibility by continually re-electing those who practice it.
Politicians of both parties buy votes. They bought senior votes with a Rx drug program they funded by borrowing money. They see being a Senator or a U.S Representative as a job instead of being servant of the people. I have been educating individuals for a long time on why deficits are bad. I have been warning people about Social Security
Whatever happened to the Republican-controlled congress' hardline stance against the raising of the 1996 debt-ceiling?
"The debt ceiling is the appropriate device for getting to a balanced budget," said Blankley (Gingrich spokesman). "If we get to a balanced budget, we won't have to keep raising the debt ceiling."
Oh yea, they caused a government shutdown that ended in disaster for those personally involved. It's sad to see Harry Reid using the same propaganda Democrats fought against in 96.
"Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said.
Of course - they don't have to. But the real question is would they be voting for it if they controlled the congress? Yes - or at least enough of them would to avoid a shutdown. This is petty politics and Reid should be pointing out the folly in the GOP stance 10 years ago and not plaigerizing their rhetoric...
Say what you want about Democrats..but...Clinton left office with an impressive surplus - Bush quickly turned it into a deficit. There is no reason why I would ever vote for any Republican.
Clinton did not achieve a general budget surplus. He achieved a unified budget surplus and that was all. The last general revenue surplus I could find was in 1959. Since that time the national debt has increased yearly.
There are two sets of books our politicians like to keep, the General and Unified budgets. The Unified Budget includes every government expense while the general budget excludes social security and Medicare. Social Security has its own dedicated tax, which by law cannot be used to pay for anything but Social Security costs, United States Code Title 42, Chapter7, Subchapter VII, Sec. 911 (a). Social Security can buy US Treasuries just like you or I, but the money must be repaid. Currently the Social Security Trust fund owns $1.6 Trillion in Special US Treasuries, which is included in the $8 Trillion National debt.
Politicians like to use the Unified Budget because they can show a lower deficit number. For example in 2004 Bush and our Representatives passed a Unified Budget resulting in a $553.6 billion deficit. The problem is they included Social Security and Medicare taxes as well as the interest their trust funds earned, which are dedicated to paying Social Security and Medicare costs, not general budget items. Excluding these dedicated tax revenues and interest payments, the General Budget deficit was $726.1 Billion. Who wants to report bad news to those you represent? We might not vote for them in the next election. Then again, maybe it is us, we simply do not want to hear the bad news and keep asking for more government services.
Whatever.....maybe we don't want to hear the bad news-but it has increased substantially
within the last six years.
I'm not arguing that this administration has been one of fiscal responsibility - quite the opposite.
My point was that the Democrats shouldn't be posturing with comments about how raising the debt ceiling is a bad thing - it is the only option and they know it. Now if they want to attack the GOP on imprudent spending and tax cuts, go right ahead, but don't be hypocritical (and foolish) about the debt ceiling...