Why are you so concerned about a downgrade, when you've been a cheerleader for the policies that got us to this point?
Because it is completely unnecessary. If we'd just passed a clean limit increase 2 months ago, no downgrade. And, of course, I was not a cheerleader for the policies that got us to this point. I didn't suggest that the housing and financial markets should collapse in 2008. I didn't suggest that GW Bush, or his dad, go on spending sprees when times were relatively good and thus government stimulus was unnecessary. barfo
Bill Clinton's deficit spending was about $500M a day. Bush's was about $1.5B a day. Obama's is about $5B a day. You've been cheering for the $5B a day all along. Bash the $1.5B, which is fine. At least be consistent, and at least recognize what you are cheering for.
I recognize that the economy was in very bad shape in 2008/2009, something that you have steadfastly refused to do. Different times call for different reactions. Since you insist that banks and car companies going out of business is no big deal (and now default is no big deal) there's not much that can be said. It's like arguing with Breivik. barfo
First of all, we're not going to default whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/u-s-contingency-plan-gives-bondholders-priority.html Second, it's a big difference between saying "it's better to default with a $14T debt than later on when the debt is $24T" and "we should default." You confuse me with Shooter. Third, the economy has been in "very bad shape" when Bush took office, when Clinton took office, when Reagan took office. The difference is those guys made lemonade out of lemons. This guy let the lemons rot, borrowed to buy more lemons, and let those rot, too. Fourth, companies going out of business IS a big deal, but I realize that companies do fail and it's a natural part of the economy. If GM were allowed to file bankruptcy (not go out of business as you claim), they'd have come out reorganized and maybe its bondholders would be a little more inclined to put their money in play. You can't blame big business for sitting on cash when they could lose it all for nothing by the fiat of one of Obama's Czars. Where was the bailout for Studebaker and Edsel?
LOL @ those who think just increasing the debt would avoid a credit downgrade. The issue isn't the debt ceiling, it's the level of debt itself.
So now they want to add in the balance budget amendment which has zero chance of being ratified by the states. So why even put it in the bill?
Putting the BBA in the bill defines where the GOP stands on the issue. Why should the Democrats fear a requirement just for a simple vote on the BBA? If the Boehner bill passes, the Republicans will have passed their compromise. The Democrats will then be in a position of rejecting the GOP compromise. IMO, at that point, it's on them. Edit based on further information: Boehner's updated bill includes a second debt limit increase only after a BBA passes both houses of Congress and gets sent to the States. Wonderful. What does it take for an amendment to become part of the Constitution? Is it 2/3? So, 34 states?
From Boehner's office: They're daring the Senate to reject the bill, and to put McCaskill, both Nelsons and Manchin in a tough spot with their upcoming reelections. In other words, the House GOP is making the Democrats pay a political price for trying to put blame on the Republicans.
This isn't the first time a balanced budget amendment has been discussed. Last time, Democrats were pushing it (1990s). So what's changed?
This is the fucking problem right here, a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who has it. Also time and place of a bad idea means little.
Here's the whole problem. Instead of trying to find a solution, the minority party is blocking the will of the majority just to make a symbolic stand. It's Republican politics as usual, and it's ruining the economy.
Maybe because the House is overwhelmingly Republican, and all these bills must first go through the house? But good lord, how great would it be if each side compromised, giant spending cuts, raised taxes, AND the Balanced Budget ammendment?
