Sure, he'll riase your debt limit ...for a BBA?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/18/sen-demint-threatens-filibuster-debt-ceiling-vote/

Throwing down the gauntlet, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint threatened Monday to block a vote in Congress on raising the U.S. ceiling unless he wins a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
The filibuster threat comes a day after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggested Republican leaders had offered private assurances to the White House that they ultimately would vote to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling, regardless of whether a deal is reached on long-term spending cuts.
Publicly, Republicans say they will demand spending cuts as a condition for supporting a hike in the debt ceiling. They stood by that claim following Geithner's comments, and DeMint took their demands a step further.
"I will oppose any attempt to vote to raise the limit on our $14 trillion debt until Congress passes the balanced-budget amendment," the conservative said. He first made the remarks to McClatchy, which his office confirmed to Fox News.
A balanced-budget amendment would prohibit the U.S. government from running a deficit. Such a provision would take a two-thirds vote in Congress, in addition to ratification by the states.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-filibuster-debt-ceiling-vote/#ixzz1K1TX1nbl
​

 

[apple0154]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/18/sen-demint-threatens-filibuster-debt-ceiling-vote/

Throwing down the gauntlet, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint threatened Monday to block a vote in Congress on raising the U.S. ceiling unless he wins a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
The filibuster threat comes a day after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggested Republican leaders had offered private assurances to the White House that they ultimately would vote to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling, regardless of whether a deal is reached on long-term spending cuts.
Publicly, Republicans say they will demand spending cuts as a condition for supporting a hike in the debt ceiling. They stood by that claim following Geithner's comments, and DeMint took their demands a step further.
"I will oppose any attempt to vote to raise the limit on our $14 trillion debt until Congress passes the balanced-budget amendment," the conservative said. He first made the remarks to McClatchy, which his office confirmed to Fox News.
A balanced-budget amendment would prohibit the U.S. government from running a deficit. Such a provision would take a two-thirds vote in Congress, in addition to ratification by the states.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-filibuster-debt-ceiling-vote/#ixzz1K1TX1nbl
​

(Excerpt from article)...if Congress ultimately rejects an increase in the debt limit, it would trigger a crisis that makes that 2008 meltdown look tame. Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest. (End)

Two years into the Repub presidency (2003) they claimed they had enough money to choose war as an option. They claimed there was plenty of money to give the rich a tax break. Now, two years after an eight year bumbling, stumbling rule their ineptitude has resulted in threatening to hang the seniors and veterans out to dry.

For the love of God keep those incompetent, war-mongering, right-wing buffoons away from the White House.

 

[Rationalist]

Dixie,

You do realize a BBA will require tax increases, don't you? Because if you believe either party will cut $1.7 trillion in spending, you are delusional.

I'm all for the BBA, but then, I'm also comfortable with raising taxes on the super wealthy.

 

[Rationalist]

Dixie,

You do realize a BBA will require tax increases, don't you? Because if you believe either party will cut $1.7 trillion in spending, you are delusional.

I'm all for the BBA, but then, I'm also comfortable with raising taxes on the super wealthy.

^ waiting

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,

You do realize a BBA will require tax increases, don't you? Because if you believe either party will cut $1.7 trillion in spending, you are delusional.

I'm all for the BBA, but then, I'm also comfortable with raising taxes on the super wealthy.

Scare tactics. Pure and simple. We can cut spending, we can balance the budget. There are some things we're going to have to live without, like Obamacare... but it can be done, and it WILL be done, it's just a matter of time. I'm not comfortable in raising ANYONE'S taxes, until we get spending under control and start balancing the budget... then we can look at raising taxes on the millions who DON'T PAY taxes, before we raise anyone else's tax. IF that all comes to fruition and we still can't pay the bills, THEN we can explore a modest increase in tax on the super-rich... otherwise, kiss my ass, I am not supporting it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

(Excerpt from article)...if Congress ultimately rejects an increase in the debt limit, it would trigger a crisis that makes that 2008 meltdown look tame. Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest. (End)

Woooo... I am scared!

Two years into the Repub presidency (2003) they claimed they had enough money to choose war as an option. They claimed there was plenty of money to give the rich a tax break. Now, two years after an eight year bumbling, stumbling rule their ineptitude has resulted in threatening to hang the seniors and veterans out to dry.

Hold on a sec... We've had 6 years of Democrats running every branch of government in Washington, and two years of a president who PROMISED to end the wars and bring the troops home... who PROMISED we would have 8% unemployment.... who PROMISED taxes wouldn't increase for those under $200k a year... who promised a chicken in every pot and everything else under the sun he needed to promise to get elected. We put up with 4 years of Nancy Pelosi getting virtually whatever she wanted passed into law, with Liberals getting every judge appointed they wanted on the bench, and after all of this.... you have the unmitigated gall to BLAME REPUBLICANS? You've lost your fucking mind! Seriously! It's GONE!

 

[Bonestorm]

Scare tactics. Pure and simple. We can cut spending, we can balance the budget. There are some things we're going to have to live without, like Obamacare... but it can be done, and it WILL be done, it's just a matter of time. I'm not comfortable in raising ANYONE'S taxes, until we get spending under control and start balancing the budget... then we can look at raising taxes on the millions who DON'T PAY taxes, before we raise anyone else's tax. IF that all comes to fruition and we still can't pay the bills, THEN we can explore a modest increase in tax on the super-rich... otherwise, kiss my ass, I am not supporting it.

Just an FYI, Obamacare lowers the deficit. Getting rid of Obamacare would further imbalance the budget.

I hope this helps.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just an FYI, Obamacare lowers the deficit. Getting rid of Obamacare would further imbalance the budget.

I hope this helps.

Shut up idiot... it does NOT lower the deficit or anything else, other than the quality and availability of health care.

You fucktards cobbled together a bunch of smoke and mirrors with the CBO to make it LOOK like it lowers the deficit, but it simply CAN'T lower the deficit and provide what is promised... there is no physical way for that to happen... it's like saying you're going on a spending spree at the mall, and when you get back, you'll have MORE money in your bank account... you can TELL yourself that, but it AIN'T gonna happen!

 

[tinfoil]

Shut up idiot... it does NOT lower the deficit or anything else, other than the quality and availability of health care.

You fucktards cobbled together a bunch of smoke and mirrors with the CBO to make it LOOK like it lowers the deficit, but it simply CAN'T lower the deficit and provide what is promised... there is no physical way for that to happen... it's like saying you're going on a spending spree at the mall, and when you get back, you'll have MORE money in your bank account... you can TELL yourself that, but it AIN'T gonna happen!

Nigel is as much of a healther as he is a warmer. No amount of evidence that contradicts his paradigm will sway his view. He can always recall a piece of propaganda to get himself through the moment.

 

[cawacko]

Shut up idiot... it does NOT lower the deficit or anything else, other than the quality and availability of health care.

You fucktards cobbled together a bunch of smoke and mirrors with the CBO to make it LOOK like it lowers the deficit, but it simply CAN'T lower the deficit and provide what is promised... there is no physical way for that to happen... it's like saying you're going on a spending spree at the mall, and when you get back, you'll have MORE money in your bank account... you can TELL yourself that, but it AIN'T gonna happen!

Yeah, claiming it will lower the deficit does not come close to passing the sniff test. Even the Director of the CBO acknowledges that the costs will likely come out different than their projections. That's kind of stating the obvious. It reminds me of when I ran numbers for the costs of high rise office buildings. I could play with the numbers and show you a 'legitimate' 5% return or 20% return depending on the assumptions I wanted to use. I have no doubt that using some narrowly defined criteria the CBO was able to come up with a number that supposedly reduces the deficit. But like what I did with the office buildings you can do a lot of things on paper. The real world though doesn't give two sh*ts about your assumptions.

Like Medicare we will look back years from now and laugh at the assumptions made at the time this health care reform was passed and its supposive deficit reduction.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, claiming it will lower the deficit does not come close to passing the sniff test. Even the Director of the CBO acknowledges that the costs will likely come out different than their projections.....

Even if the Director of the CBO is sniffing glue and dropping acid, he should know there is not a way to provide health care to 40 million people and it not cost anything, much less... LOWER the deficit!

 

[Liberty]

Just an FYI, Obamacare lowers the deficit. Getting rid of Obamacare would further imbalance the budget.

I hope this helps.

I just can't see this.

At all.

Obamacare, at the very least, is a mandate of ownership over your body.

It's upfront commitment costs are a burden for this country, and the long term effects makes us the same as a North Korean citizen.

Nigel,,,, you better wake up dude.

You're about to be paying $10.00, $20.00(+) for bread at the store soon.

The US government is loaded with a bunch of thugs in an orgy of wealth and power.

Hey,,, how about Oswalt. Y'all got a real deal with that trade.

 

[cawacko]

Liberty what part of Texas are you in?

 

[Liberty]

S.E.

 

[Rationalist]

Well, the notion that ObamaCare lowers the deficit is pure bullshit.

That aside, there's no way in hell they're going to cut $1.7 trillion in spending. I have no doubt that it "could" be done; hell, technically they "could" eliminate the Federal government altogether! Obviously, it will never happen.

Americans want a government that is frugal, but they also want a government that has some meat on it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, the notion that ObamaCare lowers the deficit is pure bullshit.

That aside, there's no way in hell they're going to cut $1.7 trillion in spending. I have no doubt that it "could" be done; hell, technically they "could" eliminate the Federal government altogether! Obviously, it will never happen.

Americans want a government that is frugal, but they also want a government that has some meat on it.

I think you are wrong, I think the TEA Party won't rest until the spending is cut and the budget balanced. Politicians don't want to cut spending, it eats into their power and control... but this is going to happen, whether they want it or not, or we'll keep throwing them out and putting new ones in, until it does happen.

 

[Rationalist]

I think you are wrong, I think the TEA Party won't rest until the spending is cut and the budget balanced. Politicians don't want to cut spending, it eats into their power and control... but this is going to happen, whether they want it or not, or we'll keep throwing them out and putting new ones in, until it does happen.

The Tea Party won't get their way 100% -- they're going to have to compromise (yes, I said it) and meet in the middle.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Tea Party won't get their way 100% -- they're going to have to compromise (yes, I said it) and meet in the middle.

I don't know, maybe you don't comprehend this, but there is no "meet in the middle" on the issue of balancing the federal budget. We either DO balance it, or we DON'T balance it... there is no "in between" area where a 'compromise' can be made. Now, the TEA Party might not get to cut all the things they want to cut, they may have to cut some things they didn't want to cut... but the issue of balancing the budget is not something that is negotiable. And this is going to get done, in fact, if DeMint has his way, a balanced budget amendment will be passed before the debt ceiling is raised.

 

[apple0154]

Shut up idiot... it does NOT lower the deficit or anything else, other than the quality and availability of health care.

You fucktards cobbled together a bunch of smoke and mirrors with the CBO to make it LOOK like it lowers the deficit, but it simply CAN'T lower the deficit and provide what is promised... there is no physical way for that to happen... it's like saying you're going on a spending spree at the mall, and when you get back, you'll have MORE money in your bank account... you can TELL yourself that, but it AIN'T gonna happen!

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. Every country (NO EXCEPTION) that has government medical pays 1/3 to 1/2 less than the US. The vast majority of citizens in every country (NO EXCEPTION) that has government medical insist on keeping it.

Every graph, every table, every poll tells the same thing. Government medical is superior to a "pay or suffer" system and ObamaCare is the first step on that journey.

 

[Bonestorm]

Obamacare raises revenues and increases spending. The revenue raised is projected to be substantially more than the spending included. It's fairly straightforward.

That's why the Obamacare repeal bill was projected to increase the deficit substantially.