TexasCHLforum.com

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Obama is a fool.

This.

The winner.

Anygunanywhere

Yes you are wrong, Obama has bent over backwards to get a deal done and all the GOP has done is throw a fit, whine and scream no. I'm convinced that they want to crash the economy so they can use it in '12. Tax increases need to be part of the deal, taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan but there are still no jobs so the talking point that low taxes = more jobs is bogus. I am sick of this, I have never see anything like this from a political party before, nothing is every going to get done if the GOP keeps moving the goalpost.

As a counterpoint, I am equally convinced that the President and his cronies do not love this nation. It can easily be argued that, if past performance is an indicator of future performance, these folks desire nothing less than the downfall of our nation. We can debate tax and economic policy on partisan terms all day long, but until our elected representatives actually DO what we the people would ask them to, rather than SAYING what we want to hear and then doing something else, the federal government will not be solving any problems, and more taxes/government is simply creating more waste while benefitting only those who game the system because they don't want to be productive in society.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072611.php3
Jewish World Review July 26, 2011 / 24 Tamuz, 5771
Debt-Ceiling Chicken
By Thomas Sowell

The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be.

Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies — and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative economist, lays the blame at the feet of both parties, and he speaks truth to power. Congress, knowing full well that it has a debt-ceiling law upon which it can fall back if it ever finds itself in the position of not being able to pay for the bread it throws to the masses, NEVER has the sense that it can only push the American taxpayers so far. Not ever.

This is why it is so crucial to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). Since Congress cannot be trusted to resist the temptation to spend like drunken sailors (on anything, name your poison, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you hail from), they must be forced by Constitutional Amendment into behaving like grown ups.

Now, ironically, the last time a BBA was put before Congress, it passed in the House, and lost by ONE vote in the Senate. It has passed again in the House, and will probably lose again in the Senate. Why? Because (mostly) democrat senators are loath to have accountability forced on them. The President, a democrat, has repeatedly proclaimed that he will veto any budget deal that passes if it contains a BBA. Why? Because he is spending like a drunken sailor and has been more profligate than any president since FDR......and those were big shoes to fill when it comes to spending.

There is no shortage of eminent economists, including at least one who was on FDR's economic policy team, who have said in hindsight that the federal government actually deepened the "great" depression and prolonged its misery by interfering so massively in the economy with profligate federal spending. Obama fancies himself the next FDR. History is repeating itself. ALL he can do is sign budgets into law, or veto budgets put before him. The proposed BBA does not outlaw tax increases. It does not outlaw debt-ceiling increases. What it DOES do is require a supermajority in Congress to pass such things, making it deliberately difficult (just as the founders made amending the Constitution possible, but deliberately difficult) as a bulwark against tyranny. But Obama will veto any spending bill that sets a constitutional limit on his ability to direct the nation's economy from the oval office like a spider in its web. Well, President Truman, also a democrat, but one who had actually owned and operated a small business, would not have approved.

The last time Congress passed a budget, republicans had control of both houses of Congress. Now, they overspent too, and they are not innocent of screwing taxpayers. But, at least they could pass a budget. Democrats can't even do that, and they're not even ashamed of their budgetary impotence. It is part of their constitutional mandate, and they have ignored that imperative! Either way, both sides are guilty as hades. One side passes budgets that drive us closer to the brink. The other side refuses to pass a budget at all, driving us closer to the brink. And you have a president who is using his ability to spread money around to try and cement his hold on power—screw what the taxpayers want. In the past, neither party has been beholden to any constituency that required them to rein in spending and balance the budget. Say whatever else you want about the Tea Party movement, they are the only group that is having an effect on either of the major parties in the direction of fiscal rectitude. The Republican Party leadership, against its general inclination to act as democrat lite, is being forced to pay heed to this demand for adult behavior with the taxpayers' money.

For the voter, this is a carrot and stick moment. For those politicians who at least try to reform their behavior with the nation's checkbook, we should give them a second chance and keep them in office.....the carrot. For those politicians who insist on their divine appointment to spend OPM (other people's money), we should fire them asap............the stick. For politicians who give lip service to financial reform but who fall to temptation in the breach, no more second chances. Beat them with that stick.

If passing another debt limit increase truly is what is required in order for the government to not default on some of its current obligations—after having trimmed some of the fat—then I would support its passage, BUT ONLY IF IT WERE TIED TO A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. Why? Because passage of the BBA would prevent this from ever happening again unless a supermajority of the voters wanted it. Unfortunately, the Senate does not seem to be so inclined. They are more concerned with their personal power than they are with the nation's financial health. 2012 is our ONE chance to rectify this. I truly don't believe that we'll ever get it done if we don't get it done in 2012.

I've been a political junkie for a long time, and I can never recall there being as clear cut a division between that faction of the government which views itself as being above accountability to the people, and that faction of government which is determined to restore accountability. Unless budgetary reform happens, this situation will continue to escalate until it leads to some kind of radical restructuring of how we are governed—either for the better or for the worse. Call it "collapse," call it "revolution," call it what you want. The current trend IS UNSUSTAINABLE. If one side is trying to force accountability, and the other side is trying to eliminate accountability, then it is the side which is trying to eliminate it which will own the blame for pushing government into collapse—not the side which was trying force the accountability that would have prevented it.

It really is as clear as that. In a day and age when Obama's Jobs Tzar, GE CEO Jeff Immelt, announced that GE would be moving its X-Ray division to China, creating jobs there instead of the U.S. (SOURCE), you really have to wonder if Obama knows any more about the economy and his proper role in it than any 10 year old child. I don't think he does.

b322da wrote:Medic,

You ask "correct me if I'm wrong...." To not appear offensive, which is not intended, I will take a shot at answering your critically important question: "Perhaps. Perhaps not."

This is a very difficult economics-mixed-with-politics question, and I suggest that the best answer to it is probably not quite as simple as some would make it appear, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. I guarandarnteeyou that I am not tempted to give you an easy "Yes" or "No," but I might offer a little food for thought.

Let me offer a couple of interesting links to a couple of national sources which maybe do not have a political axe to grind.

First: "The U. S. Will Not Default on August 2"

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/26/th ... ust-2/?xid" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some new thinking here, fairly evenly critical of both sides in Washington.

And: "Smash the Ceiling"

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial ... surowiecki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one really appeals to me. It would, I think, terminate the game played so often by the buffoons in Washington, both the Dems and the Reps, and by both the White House and the Hill, the latter regardless of the political party in control of each, or part of each, and hold all their feet to the fire, put their money where their mouths are, and hopefully make them accept personal responsibility for their actions. I think it is no secret why the alternative this article suggests has, to my knowledge, received no public attention in Washington.

Elmo

Strangely, once again we are near agreement...... As Thomas Sowell said, the debt-ceiling law out to be judged by what it actually does, not by what a good idea it might appear to be.

In principle, I agree with you about holding their feet to the fire, but unfortunately, we never seem to actually do that. My own theory to explain this is that the same voters who complain about the issue, from either perspective, are themselves in debt up to their eyeballs and lack any personal financial discipline. You have to undertand and practice a thing in your own life before you can begin to demand that your elected representatives practice it in theirs. Personally, I favor a balanced budget amendment. The one proposed by Boener as part of the budget deal does not make it illegal to raise the debt limit or to raise taxes. It merely requires A) a balanced budget; and B) a supermajority to pass any such increases. If Congress couldn't get the supermajority to raise the debt or taxes, then the default position would be that they must balance the budget. If they could get the supermajority to raise either, that would be a clear reflection of the will of the people.

loadedliberal wrote:Yes you are wrong, Obama has bent over backwards to get a deal done and all the GOP has done is throw a fit, whine and scream no. I'm convinced that they want to crash the economy so they can use it in '12. Tax increases need to be part of the deal, taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan but there are still no jobs so the talking point that low taxes = more jobs is bogus. I am sick of this, I have never see anything like this from a political party before, nothing is every going to get done if the GOP keeps moving the goalpost.

Thanks, LL. Boy, was I feeling lonely.

Breaking news!! "Emergency Team Of 8th-Grade Civics Teachers Dispatched To Washington." - The Onion.

Elmo

loadedliberal wrote: Obama has bent over backwards to get a deal done and all the GOP has done is throw a fit, whine and scream no.

Funny, all I've seen Obama do is whine and scream (on TV, even), and threaten veto if he doesn't get what he wants. I've seen NO plans from him. I have seen plans from the house republicans, which the Senate claims is DOA, and Obama says he'll veto. I don't see the GOP saying no, I see the Demo's saying no.

I'm not voting for him for President, but, Ron Paul sure makes perfect sense (to me) here...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas- ... t_id=86909" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

loadedliberal wrote:Yes you are wrong, Obama has bent over backwards to get a deal done and all the GOP has done is throw a fit, whine and scream no. I'm convinced that they want to crash the economy so they can use it in '12. Tax increases need to be part of the deal, taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan but there are still no jobs so the talking point that low taxes = more jobs is bogus. I am sick of this, I have never see anything like this from a political party before, nothing is every going to get done if the GOP keeps moving the goalpost.

It is not possible for you and I to have a more opposite opinion here...

We need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. The notion that "we're just spending money that Congress has already authorized" doesn't hold even a micro-liter of water with me. That spending (in excess of revenue) should never have been authorized, so, I loose no sleep over reversing course. The spending must be reined in immediately. The short term pain will be nothing compared to spending as usual.

I bet the markets (if that's any concern) will react positively to us getting spending under control. Unless, that is, Obama just throws up his hands and says "I told you so", which is entirely possible. A leader would see this for the opportunity that it is to get our financial house in order. A Democrat who is any kind of leader will see this as a free pass to cut spending and not carry any of the blame for having to do so. Obama, if he was a leader, could easily make the hard cuts and when people complained about it he could say "this is the money I am left to spend, blame it on the Congress"...... Talk about a winning situation for him.

Obama hasn't even OFFERED a budget for consideration in his entire tenure. Shame on him.

RoyGBiv wrote:Obama hasn't even OFFERED a budget for consideration in his entire tenure. Shame on him.

Actually it isn't his job to offer a budget. That is Congress's job. On the other hand, they haven't passed a budget either....not even when dems had majorities in both houses. Shame on ALL of them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Obama hasn't even OFFERED a budget for consideration in his entire tenure. Shame on him.

Actually it isn't his job to offer a budget. That is Congress's job. On the other hand, they haven't passed a budget either....not even when dems had majorities in both houses. Shame on ALL of them.

It is well within the President's authority to present a budget to Congress for their consideration.

Yes... Shame on ALL of them... Except the freshmen.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Obama is a fool.

If the Republicans allow him to raise the debt ceiling, Obama is smarter than all of them combined.

unhappycamper wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:Obama is a fool.

If the Republicans allow him to raise the debt ceiling, Obama is smarter than all of them combined.

I didn't say he wasn't smart enough to manipulate the situation. I am iterating that his stance/stated objectives as regards the future of this country are those of a fool.

Like Obi-Wan said, "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fools who follows him?"

The budget deficit is EASY to fix. Give me a pen and a line-item-veto.

AND: Give me a list of the departments, bureaus, agencies, and a red pen and I will fix the problem. RoyGBiv already listed a few of them.
loadedliberal: It was Obama who moved the goalpost.

Reduce the size of the federal government, go to flat tax, pass a constitutional amendment requiring balancing the budget, and have term limits. Whew!

b322da wrote:Breaking news!! "Emergency Team Of 8th-Grade Civics Teachers Dispatched To Washington." - The Onion.

Elmo

It sounds like they have a more pressing need for an 8th grade Home Economics teacher to explain budgeting.