U.S. credit rating downgraded....THANKS POLITICIANS!

[Texas Dan Mosby]

I am hardly a socialist don't use your petty insults to try and gloss over the facts.

Here are the facts...

10 years ago we started the first war with an (R) as the chief exec. Congress and the pres used this as an opportunity to begin crushing the budget, and regardless of whether a (R) or a (D) preceded the executive branch, or the legislative branch majority, our ridiculous government FAILED CONTINUOUSLY to enact measures that would STOP out of control federal spending. PERIOD.

The ONLY voice of reason regarding spending seems to come from the "Tea party", and amazingly enough, they are vilified for advocating spending cuts, and a mandated balanced budget. Go figure.

There is room on the branch for everyone, as both political clown parties share responsibility for getting us to the sorry state we are currently in, and if anyone can't see and understand that, they are either blind, stupid, or a straight up liar.

we should be having a new constitutional convention and re-defining who we are as a nation...

Sign me up.

[Beiruty]

So, when is the next budget? and when we will see a plan to go back into black?

[The Mad Moderate]

I would like to thank the Tea Party, the GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Thanks a bunch.

I don't think so. Democrats had MORE than their fair share in driving the debt up to this point.

I think the GOP infected the wound that was this whole debt debate, if revenues were raised it likely would have prevented this downgrade. The GOP held the debt ceiling hostage and used it as a weapon. This led to massive uncertainty and shook the markets, if this vote was done as the 100 or so before it there would not have been the uncertainty that led to this downgrade.

Actually you are wrong. S&P wanted 4 trillion in cuts and didn't get anywhere near that. If our government would quit spending money they don't have and start reducing the over-bloated pig, then this wouldn't even be up for discussion. You should be thanking the Tea Partiers for at least getting some cuts on the board.

Answer me this. Why are democrats afraid of a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget?

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

[The Annoyed Man]

I would like to thank the Tea Party, the GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Thanks a bunch.

I don't think so. Democrats had MORE than their fair share in driving the debt up to this point.

I think the GOP infected the wound that was this whole debt debate, if revenues were raised it likely would have prevented this downgrade. The GOP held the debt ceiling hostage and used it as a weapon. This led to massive uncertainty and shook the markets, if this vote was done as the 100 or so before it there would not have been the uncertainty that led to this downgrade.

1. Your president had no plan. None. Not one. That's part of his JOB........to propose a budget. Instead, he lectured members of commerce who agreed to meet with him, and then he took his toys and went home in a tantrum. What a nellie-boy.
2. Your president threatened to veto ANY deal that included a Balanced Budget Amendment—the ONE thing that would have ensured that lawmakers would be REQUIRED to match expenditures to revenues. The ONLY thing. As economist Thomas Sowell said:

   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.

   The emphases are mine, but the point is that YOUR side is as equally guilty of getting us here as anybody else, and your attempt to try to foist it all off on the GOP is inexcusably and extremely cheesy. Until liberals cowboy up and understand that simply raising taxes and finding new entitlements to blow it on and new federal departments to manage those entitlements, NOBODY can fix the problem.
3. A recent Rassmussen poll showed that some 65% (IIRC) of American voters, of ALL parties, want the entire Congress to be voted out and replaced—not just those congresspersons of the opposition party to theirs.
4. Actually READ the link I posted above from the Washington Post. From that link:

   Lowering the nation’s rating one-notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bi-partisan agreement reached this week to find $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would have no luck achieving more savings later on.

   Again, the emphases are mine. BOTH parties played at political brinksmanship. BOTH. The dems aren't weak sisters, and they know how to play dirty pool.......I offer Harry Reid as an example. I offer Chicago politics as an example. There aren't 10 republicans within 25 miles of Chicago.

So you can take the cheap shots and put them somewhere dark and moist.

[Right2Carry]

I would like to thank the Tea Party, the GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Thanks a bunch.

I don't think so. Democrats had MORE than their fair share in driving the debt up to this point.

I think the GOP infected the wound that was this whole debt debate, if revenues were raised it likely would have prevented this downgrade. The GOP held the debt ceiling hostage and used it as a weapon. This led to massive uncertainty and shook the markets, if this vote was done as the 100 or so before it there would not have been the uncertainty that led to this downgrade.

Actually you are wrong. S&P wanted 4 trillion in cuts and didn't get anywhere near that. If our government would quit spending money they don't have and start reducing the over-bloated pig, then this wouldn't even be up for discussion. You should be thanking the Tea Partiers for at least getting some cuts on the board.

Answer me this. Why are democrats afraid of a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget?

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

Answer my question first. Why are democrats afraid of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?

[Oldgringo]

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

There is room on the branch for everyone, as both political clown parties share responsibility for getting us to the sorry state we are currently in, and if anyone can't see and understand that, they are either blind, stupid, or a straight up liar.

There it is folks...in living color. Not that anyone cares, but .

[The Annoyed Man]

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

You don't understand what a BBA is. It requires a BALANCED budget, not "no-spending." If we have to fight a war, then we raise the money to fight it.........just like we did in WW2..........through taxes, war-bond drives, whatever. But we don't use the debt raised to finance ANYTHING except the war. And when it is over, taxes go back down, and the war debt gets paid off. No new expenditures above the minimum necessary just because we have new revenue and congress wants to make that new revenue permanent. UNLESS APPROVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY. That is all the BBA says. It requires that A) the budget be balanced, and that B) a supermajority is required in order to go into debt, and then revenues have to be raised to pay for the new debt.

[The Mad Moderate]

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

You don't understand what a BBA is. It requires a BALANCED budget, not "no-spending." If we have to fight a war, then we raise the money to fight it.........just like we did in WW2..........through taxes, war-bond drives, whatever. But we don't use the debt raised to finance ANYTHING except the war. And when it is over, taxes go back down, and the war debt gets paid off. No new expenditures above the minimum necessary just because we have new revenue and congress wants to make that new revenue permanent. UNLESS APPROVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY. That is all the BBA says. It requires that A) the budget be balanced, and that B) a supermajority is required in order to go into debt, and then revenues have to be raised to pay for the new debt.

Where was your outrage when Bush invaded two other countries and kept the cost "off the books" and decreased revenue with his tax cuts.

[chasfm11]

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

If we were in a major war with China, the last thing that we would have to worry about is a BBA. That goes for Russia, too. War with either of those could result in TEOTWAWKI.

I'm one of those who doesn't hold much stock in the BBA. Many States already have them and the politicians ignore them. The best that we could hope for out of a Federal BBA is to be able to get a list of miscreants who vote for bills that exceed it. That is unless we get another session of Congress that wants to "deem" bills as passed without a recorded, by member vote.

I

[Blindref757]

I would like to thank the Tea Party, the GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Thanks a bunch.

You say this because Socialism has such a great track record, right?

Seriously...this demagoguery is exactly the problem. It isn't the Tea Party's fault, it isn't the Republicans, and it isn't all the Democrats fault. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of spending us into oblivion.

Please come to the realization that our problems are big and the solution is going to be painful...for EVERYONE!!! There must be cuts in ALL programs and departments...military, social security, medicare, education, arts, healthcare, etc. NOTHING IS IMMUNE OR OFF THE TABLE...including a complete overhaul of the tax system which might include both a flat tax rate and a national sales tax. We will not survive as a republic with over 50% of the folks not paying any taxes...and receiving some sort of public assistance. If that is the case, we should be having a new constitutional convention and re-defining who we are as a nation...because we sure as heck aren't a capitalist republic right now and looking forward under the current disgrace in Washington. There isn't a free lunch...even for Progressives.

I am hardly a socialist don't use your petty insults to try and gloss over the facts.

I wasn't being petty...but I can see that you are not above the ad hominem defense tactics of most liberals when they are being beaten in politcal debate. There isn't one thing in my post that calls you out personally at all...and certainly not an insult. I'm sure you are feeling pretty much like you are on the bottom of the dog pile...but if that is indeed the case, you put yourself there by having an opinion that you know is in stark contrast to most of the people on this board. Friendly discourse is fine...but you are the one who crossed the line. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

[chasfm11]

Where was your outrage when Bush invaded two other countries and kept the cost "off the books" and decreased revenue with his tax cuts.

...while the Democratic party controlled both houses from 2006? Excuse me but I don't remember any bills being passed that were vetoed by President Bush that would have dealt with any of that. Perhaps it is just my failing memory.

You can keep this one sided blame game going as long as you wish. The truth is that neither party is blameless. The sooner we all come to that conclusion and vote for individuals instead of party affiliation, the faster that we will have a hope of repairing the damage.

[Right2Carry]

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

You don't understand what a BBA is. It requires a BALANCED budget, not "no-spending." If we have to fight a war, then we raise the money to fight it.........just like we did in WW2..........through taxes, war-bond drives, whatever. But we don't use the debt raised to finance ANYTHING except the war. And when it is over, taxes go back down, and the war debt gets paid off. No new expenditures above the minimum necessary just because we have new revenue and congress wants to make that new revenue permanent. UNLESS APPROVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY. That is all the BBA says. It requires that A) the budget be balanced, and that B) a supermajority is required in order to go into debt, and then revenues have to be raised to pay for the new debt.

Where was your outrage when Bush invaded two other countries and kept the cost "off the books" and decreased revenue with his tax cuts.

Why can't you answer a question without trying to derail the subject? You seem bent on avoiding the true issue while trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong. I will try this one more time. Why are democrats and liberals so scared of a balanced budget amendment?

[The Mad Moderate]

Lets say for sake of argument that we have a BBA. What would happen if all of a sudden we were in a major war with a nation like China, how would you propose that be paid for.

You don't understand what a BBA is. It requires a BALANCED budget, not "no-spending." If we have to fight a war, then we raise the money to fight it.........just like we did in WW2..........through taxes, war-bond drives, whatever. But we don't use the debt raised to finance ANYTHING except the war. And when it is over, taxes go back down, and the war debt gets paid off. No new expenditures above the minimum necessary just because we have new revenue and congress wants to make that new revenue permanent. UNLESS APPROVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY. That is all the BBA says. It requires that A) the budget be balanced, and that B) a supermajority is required in order to go into debt, and then revenues have to be raised to pay for the new debt.

Where was your outrage when Bush invaded two other countries and kept the cost "off the books" and decreased revenue with his tax cuts.

Why can't you answer a question without trying to derail the subject? You seem bent on avoiding the true issue while trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong. I will try this one more time. Why are democrats and liberals so scared of a balanced budget amendment?

Because it's not a good idea, pure and simple.

[Beiruty]

cool down... it is just politics.

[Blindref757]

The Tea Party people in Washington are PATRIOTS!!! It is disgusting to me that they are being labeled as terrorist, hostage takers, jihadists, and puppy killers by such wonderful people as Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.