|
Bush about to get a rude awakening with his reckless spending
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Shutdown looms if Senate doesn't up credit
But most Democrats and some Republicans say they won't vote for the increase on grounds that the budget must be brought under control.
March 3, 2006: 1:42 PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nasty budget fight is brewing in Congress as Senate Democrats and some conservative Republicans said Friday that they will not support efforts this month to increase U.S. borrowing authority, a move needed to avoid a government default.
Democrats, who hope to gain control of the House and Senate in this year's congressional elections, are looking for a debate on the credit limit to highlight the nation's mounting debt at a time when President Bush also is pushing to make his tax cuts permanent.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put all 55 Senate Republicans on notice that they "are going to have to belly up to the bar and vote to increase the debt," saying it was Republican budgets that have created the massive deficit spending requiring more federal borrowing.
"Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said.
Without an increase in U.S. borrowing authority, the federal government could face default. That would mean Washington would not be able to continue writing checks for a variety of activities, from meeting federal workers' payrolls to paying some retiree benefits. Federal parks could close, aid for the poor could be withheld and the space shuttle likely would be docked.
Last April, without any support from Democrats, the Senate and House of Representatives approved a fiscal 2006 budget plan that envisioned the need for increasing U.S. borrowing authority by $781 billion.
More recently, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to increase the statutory debt limit, as his agency was bumping up against the $8.18 trillion limit.
In mid-February, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told Reuters he hoped the legislation would be quietly brought to a vote just before the Senate's next recess, which is set for March 18.
The debt ceiling increase historically has been politically distasteful and some conservative Republicans in the Senate could join Democrats in opposing the increase.
"It's highly unlikely that I can support a debt limit (increase) without major structural change that brings the spending under control," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told Reuters.
Coburn said the need to increase the debt limit offered "a great opportunity to put as much pressure as we can" to bring down government spending.
But quick passage in Congress of legislation to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending this year is unlikely. Congress is still recovering from a bruising, yearlong fight to trim $39 billion over five years.
It is also unlikely lawmakers would want a repeat of the public backlash in the 1990s when congressional Republicans forced a series of brief government shutdowns in a budget fight with then-President Bill Clinton.
House Democrats also have warned that they would oppose a debt limit increase without also putting into place a plan to eventually balance a federal budget that could see a deficit of around $400 billion this year.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/03/new....reut/index.htm
|
It's about ing time. It'll be interesting to see how Bush appeals to his "conservative" base when it comes to advocating his "liberal" spending habits for a 6th straight year. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
Thanks, very interesting article.
May'be people now will realize deficits now, more taxes later.
I think the Republicans know that a future Democratic Administration will have to raise taxes to pay off Bush's debt, and then they'll whine & cry about how the democrats raised taxes. I really dont think Bush cares what happens to this country when he leaves office. He may start to care now.
I'm also predicting that battles in Congree & Senate may split the Republican party in two before next election, as a lot of "Main Street" Republicans will refuse to support the president for personal & moral & also re-election reasons. I believe 3 major political parties in the U.S. would be good for the democratic process, as in Canada where in the past 15 years the centrist Liberal Party dominates the political landscape over the Conservatives & the more left wing & socialist NDP's ( Block Quebecois tend to also be Liberal on many issues ). |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
Thanks, very interesting article.
May'be people now will realize deficits now, more taxes later.
I think the Republicans know that a future Democratic Administration will have to raise taxes to pay off Bush's debt, and then they'll whine & cry about how the democrats raised taxes. I really dont think Bush cares what happens to this country when he leaves office. He may start to care now.
I'm also predicting that battles in Congree & Senate may split the Republican party in two before next election, as a lot of "Main Street" Republicans will refuse to support the president for personal & moral & also re-election reasons. I believe 3 major political parties in the U.S. would be good for the democratic process, as in Canada where in the past 15 years the centrist Liberal Party dominates the political landscape over the Conservatives & the more left wing & socialist NDP's ( Block Quebecois tend to also be Liberal on many issues ). |
Yeah I agree. We need a third party. I don't believe all republicans are bad people, and some of them really are starting to see that Bush is not the man they thought he was. But i've known even before he was in office that this man would ruin our country, because I studied up on his record in Texas, and it was awful! poor education, lots of crime and poverty, some of the most death penalties under his watch in the nation, unsecured borders, and horrible pollution (aka Houston). I warned a bunch of people in my economics class in 9th grade that he was going to ruin our economy and our country (and even our world haha), and a lot of them didn't believe it, even the teacher (we got into political debates even though we weren't supposed to). But now we are adults and can vote, I really have to say to them "I told you so" and "you guys voted for him...you get what you deserve".... |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's about ing time. It'll be interesting to see how Bush appeals to his "conservative" base when it comes to advocating his "liberal" spending habits for a 6th straight year. |
good play on words, you cheese. :p
Nobody likes debt. If we can ever get rid of our debt, I will be surprised. And no, clinton did not get rid of the debt, he balanced the budget. I don't know why people thought he got rid of our debt, it's really a goal only to be accomplished by the best of the best. We are trillions in debt, it's going to take more than one president to get us out of it.
Maybe if we didn't forgive all european debts, we wouldn't be in this situation? Just a thought, I don't necessarily believe this. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
Yeah I agree. We need a third party. I don't believe all republicans are bad people, and some of them really are starting to see that Bush is not the man they thought he was. But i've known even before he was in office that this man would ruin our country, because I studied up on his record in Texas, and it was awful! poor education, lots of crime and poverty, some of the most death penalties under his watch in the nation, unsecured borders, and horrible pollution (aka Houston). I warned a bunch of people in my economics class in 9th grade that he was going to ruin our economy and our country (and even our world haha), and a lot of them didn't believe it, even the teacher (we got into political debates even though we weren't supposed to). But now we are adults and can vote, I really have to say to them "I told you so" and "you guys voted for him...you get what you deserve".... |
Got any other brilliant predictions you'd care to share with us, Nostradamus? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
It's about ing time. It'll be interesting to see how Bush appeals to his "conservative" base when it comes to advocating his "liberal" spending habits for a 6th straight year. |
Occrider--
Something you might find interest in, if you can get your hands on it. There was a recent interview/article published by Well Weeden & Co. or something like that. It's an interview with a guy named John Williams. The gist of the interview is that basically government data has been tainted since LBJ. At least the way our government states a lot of figures. The funny part is that the government is always very honest about how they fudge the numbers, it's all just buried deep in the footnotes. Some of the conclusions were that the unemployment rate is closer to 11%, the national debt is closer to $11 trillion, and inflation is running closer to 9%.
Anyway, not sure if you can get your hands on it, but it's an interesting (albeit scary) read if you do. It was published very recently. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Shut it down...SHUT THE DAMN GOVERNMENT DOWN!
Freeze the f*ckin spending. It will be a beautiful thing. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Got any other brilliant predictions you'd care to share with us, Nostradamus? |
No, all I did was read up on his record and tell it to the class. Not rocket science to look up Bush's record as governor of Texas to see what he did to that state, and then to see what he's done to our own country to screw it up. He actually increased spending by 36 percent while governor, that's twice the amount that Clinton did during the same time period. He even spent the surplus the state had as well. Bush's is quite frankly not a fiscal conservative at all. The best government is one of moderation, balancing of the budget (can anyone say Clinton) and Bush is certaintly not a moderate or a balancer of any budget (he's hasn't vetoed anything yet, he almost vetoed the important bill passed to stop abuse of detaninees, and threatened to veto any bill that will stop the ports deal with Dubai Ports World). He did the same thing to Texas as he's done to our country, spend the surplus....and totally disregarded the fiscal well being of our country...in his view...our generation will pay for the deficit, and then my children's generation...and so and so on.... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
No, all I did was read up on his record and tell it to the class. Not rocket science to look up Bush's record as governor of Texas to see what he did to that state, and then to see what he's done to our own country to screw it up. He actually increased spending by 36 percent while governor, that's twice the amount that Clinton did during the same time period. He even spent the surplus the state had as well. Bush's is quite frankly not a fiscal conservative at all. The best government is one of moderation, balancing of the budget (can anyone say Clinton) and Bush is certaintly not a moderate or a balancer of any budget (he's not vetoed anything yet, he almost vetoed the important bill passed to stop abuse of detaninees, and threatened to veteo any bill that will stop the ports deal with Dubai Ports World). He did the same thing to Texas as he's done to our country, spend the surplus....and totally disregarded the fiscal well being of our country...in his view...our generation will pay for the deficit, and then my children's generation...and so and so on.... |
Guess you'd better start saving.:disbelief |
|
|
| Drakkie |
| in an article in the "Natuur,wetenschap &techniek"magazine from Holland from before Bush would become president stated that the USA would bankrupt in 15 years time with te current spendings. They recently revised the article, saying 3 years. If that happens, the world will simply become like in the 1930's . one hell of a mess.more radical people will step o power. Other nations gain power (Iran ? think that region) and here will probably come another war. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
He actually increased spending by 36 percent while governor, that's twice the amount that Clinton did during the same time period. He even spent the surplus the state had as well. B |
GEORGE BUSH IS A BIG GOVERNMENT BIG SPENDING LIBERAL!!!
I also read a few years ago that the education system in Texas was real bad under Bushes watch. Now I understand - keep people ignorant so they keep his family dynasty in power. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
But i've known even before he was in office that this man would ruin our country, because I studied up on his record in Texas, and it was awful! poor education, lots of crime and poverty, some of the most death penalties under his watch in the nation, unsecured borders, and horrible pollution (aka Houston). |
Well said. I agree. I personally voted for Gore & Kerry and cared more for their intelligence than slogans or photo ops. I believe the real reason Bush dragged his feet on illegal immigration for so long is that Bush wants to keep a permanent underclass resulting in a permanent flow of chiep labor for his corperate ( especially argicultural ) doners. Abramoff isn't the only one that bought the Bush administration. |
|
|
|
|
