After months of political wrangling that has left the public weary, a compromise to raise the debt ceiling appears to have been reached. On Monday, the House of Representatives voted to prevent the nation from defaulting on its loans and having its credit rating downgraded.
The vote was passed 269-161, with 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting no. On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to vote.
People on both sides of the political spectrum seemed less than thrilled with the compromise. Some politicans were saying the deal didn’t go far enough in making cuts to out of control federal spending, while others thought not enough efforts were made to increase revenue as the rich continue to benefit from the Bush tax cuts.
Mike Honda (D-San Jose) was quoted before the vote as saying he could not “support this bill unless I am certain that it includes protections for the most vulnerable and the middle class.”
Honda went on to label the last few months a “a crisis manufactured by Republican leadership.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she supports the deal despite recognizing it is far from perfect. “Sausage making is not pretty,” she said. “But the sausage we have, I think, is a very different sausage from when we started.”
While many in the House and Senate disagree on how to come to terms on raising the debt ceiling, which has never received so much attention in the past, public polling shows Americans, regardless of political affilitation, are united in their distaste for the entire process.
According to the LA Times, “A staggering 72% had nothing but derision in describing the process.”
Here is a list of how Bay Area representatives voted, according to ABC:
No
Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont
Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton
Rep. Barbara Lee D-Oakland
Rep. George Miller, D-Concord.
Yes
Nancy Pelosi, D-San Fracnsico
Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto
If Honda was so opposed to this bill, why didn’t he either co-author one or at least make public a version he would support. Oh that would mean that Honda would have to actually become a Congressman rather than another local Pol who can’t find a job outside of politics. Honda doesn’t have an original idea in his head and lacks political instincts to make a difference in Congress. He relies on Pelosi to carry water for him.
Ya, I guess maybe, kinda like Rumsfeld and Cheney carried toxic waste, oops I mean water for that other guy, who is so quiet these days without them. Come to think, what Jr.‘s position on all this?
“A staggering 72% had nothing but derision in describing the process”?
So what.
A staggering 72% of sheep are oblivious that they are about to be slaughtered.
So what. That says more about the opinions of sheep than it does about cold, hard reality.
It’s politically correct to act disgusted about the “process”. It’s a strategy that liberals are only too happy to see being embraced by the media controlled public. Diverting attention away from the REAL issue (government overspending) and onto a red herring (the “process”) is exactly what the liberal big spenders want.
You want to be a good sheep? I know many of you do.
Then behave exactly the way Mike Honda and the Mercury News direct you to.
The “sheep” I know who have no personal critical thinking skills are the ones who base their scapegoating opinions on what they get from Michael Savage and Fox News. It seems all to easy to brainwash that significant but minority portion of middle America who are intellectual half-wits, like yourself. Example, last weeks Mercury letter, “there aren’t enough billionaires in the U.S. to bail out the government”. Hmm, the top 10% own 54% of the nations wealth. Try to ponder that, but don’t hurt yourself. As a FORMER 30 year Republican, I know Reagan is turning over in his grave, as one who learned that Supply Side Economics is baloney, having tried it, loosing esteemed Budget Director Stockman, but later having enough sense to correct his error by retapping the required revenue source, the wealthy.
There a too many civilized developed countries to count, were you will not see homelessness on the street, and do not have polarized politicians who refuse to compromise like spoiled brats, and have an equal or better quality of life. What cowards the Democrats have become to take not take severe action against the most significant terrorist threat to what was formerly a country of virtue, the Republican Party. Nothing short of treason.
The ultimate irony is that Bush took a internationally respected country and put us into the Worldwide toilet. But inexplicably the Republicans have managed to do it again with a Democratic President!!!!
Is it possible for you to consider the idea that the tremendous expansion in the size, spending, and power of our government has had a stifling effect on the economy? That the public sector has overwhelmed and suffocated the private sector? That ‘stimulus’ programs have the opposite effect to that intended? That taking all the money from all the billionaires and giving it to Government Industries Inc. would be perceived as permission to continue expanding programs and stifling the private sector even further?
Yes, true expansion is major problem, but compared to Iraq and Afghanistan it pales. My point is that its not about tax INCREASES. But bringing the tax rate back to what it was, and removing over the top shelters and exemptions.
Well I’d disagree with you that what we have is a revenue problem. Adjusting the tax rate or eliminating shelters and exemptions would all be actions based on the premise that our difficulties are the result of a lack of revenue. I think our problems lie 100% on the spending side. Our problem isn’t the deficit. Our problem is that the deficit is caused by massive government growth and overspending.
And yes, I too would include our ongoing military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence that our government is out of control and acts in it’s own interest rather than in the interest of the people it supposedly serves. And hell yes, Bush was a terrible President- the worst in our history. Why do I think he was THE worst?
Because he was so bad that the people reacted by electing Obama.
> There a too many civilized developed countries to count, were you will not see homelessness on the street, and do not have polarized politicians who refuse to compromise like spoiled brats, and have an equal or better quality of life.
Oh, right. North Korea.
They have definitely solved the problem of homelessness on the street and polarized politicians.
I think your cerebral contusion may be more serious than you realize, Mr. Cerebral.
> You need to get out more. I am talking about Canada, Australia, Sweden, Holland, Germany etc. All with a GNP per capita on a par with the U.S. without the level of increasing disparity of wealth as here, always a product of globalization.
Mr. Cerebral-Contusion:
You could have mentioned Norway, France, and UK, all “civilized developed countries” that have solved the problem of “homelessness on the street and polarized politicians.”
And, by the way, all are “civilized developed countries” that offer wonderful “Obamacare” type single payer healthcare.
Now, admittedly, Norway, France, and UK have occasional mass murders, ethnic riots, or waves of arson, but—to paraphrase a former Washington, D.C. mayor—“if you overlook the murders (and riots, and arson) they actually have a low crime rate”.
You need to get out more. I am talking about Canada, Australia, Sweden, Holland, Germany etc. All with a GNP per capita on a par with the U.S. without the level of increasing disparity of wealth as here, always a product of globalization.
What a bunch of partisan political jerks trying to get up on the other party while in worst recession high unemployment and billions in debt
Thought Obama was better that that but his actions and speeches made debt crisis, unemployment, confidence in US and recession significantly worst ever time he speaks
Time for Oboma to shut up, fix economy / unemployment and lower taxes so recession ends
Only idiots – and there are many politician idiots think raising taxes will fix recession and there are many at city ,state and us government
Higher taxes only make recession worst and US / California uncompetitive Cut government spending – dummies before US goes into depression thanks to Oboma and idiot politicians of both parties
I will not be voting for him again – what a self centered partisan political jerk
Time for 2-3 new political parties to balance off 2 entrenched political Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties
People are really angry at career politicians looking out for themselves, rlection, their party , contributors and special interest not caring for public or nation
I will be voting against almost all incumbents and for political and budget reforms
Amen to that!! Start at the top and work our way down. The whole thing was a slap in the face to all true Americans.
I tried to email my reps but they make you jump through so many hoops just to try and contact them, I just gave up. Seems to me they don’t want to hear what we think.
Beware of those who refer to themselves as TRUE Americans. Joe McCarthy I believe started it. With him it was Communists, with Reed it is Unions, and with current Republicans, its Taxes. All should consider the final fate of old Joe.
“Honda went on to label the last few months a “a crisis manufactured by Republican leadership.”
The crisis, Mike, was manufactured by the creation of the federal nanny state, which carries a huge cost. It is NOT the job of government to take from those who work to support those who won’t. It is not the job of our government to provide meals, education, free translators and lawyers to the criminally accused, and medical care at not cost to them to 30 million illegals by taking yet more money from those who work.
Most of our increase in government spending since FDR is composed of programs proposed by the Democrats. Unfortunately, too many so-called Republicans went along, because the Dems. were smart enough to throw some pork out there for everyone.
$900million over TEN YEARS that is supposed to get cut by October is a rounding error, not a serious dent in the current deficit, let alone the national debt. The new “commission” will likely get nowhere with the remaining $1.4 trillion, once again over TEN YEARS; so it too is little more than a rounding error.
This “deal” is crap, and the financial markets around the world recognize it as such.
A nation of sheep gets a government of wolves.
The one good thing about all this is that it showed what an empty suit Obama is.
” Seems to me they don’t want to hear what we think.”
They don’t, since unless you bring them large campaign contributions which if they don’t spent they keep tax free when they leave office and pays tax free for many of their meals, personal expenses, second and vacation homes with government paying for them to live like millionaires – chauffered cars, private jets, security guards, the best of everything that taxpayers pay for so our career politicians can live wealthy lifestyle
Multi-millionaire career politicians ( do you know any politicians who are not millionaires and they become millionaires after being elected ) are bunch of “know it all’s ” when they know little, care less and are so ethically compromised that don’t want to be reminded they sold their ethics, honor and soul to be re/elected and don’t care about you, me or regular hard working people
Some politicians fit your broad-brush scenario, but many do not. Lumping all of them into one group serves no purpose in addition to being inaccurate.
Also, I don’t believe most of what you say is accurate in regards to campaign money. There are very strict rules as they pertain to campaign contributions.
> Some politicians fit your broad-brush scenario, but many do not. Lumping all of them into one group serves no purpose in addition to being inaccurate.
It’s probably objectively true that this as a “broad-brush” characterization, and that there are in fact competent, ethical, well-meaning politicians.
BUT!
The problem is that the political system,—in particular, a one-party dominated political system where the dominant party excercises sweeping control of print and electronic mass media and the education system,—the political system shelters and protects the miscreants, vermin, and scum whose venality and corruption NEVER seem to have any adverse consequences.
Zillions of internet postings (but not the dominant mass media) have documented the graft, corruption, self-dealing, arrogance, and hubris of prominent politicians. Yet they just seem to skate from one comfortable sinicure to the next.
Barney Frank?
Chris Dodd?
Dianne Feinstein and her MILCON enriched spouse?
Barbara Boxer and her “we’ve always done it this way” check kiting in the House bank scandal?
Etc. etc.
These people are so shady and so crooked that they couldn’t be hired as cashiers at a corner pop stand.
And yet, year after year, election after election, they surf to acclaim and prosperity on waves of glowing newsmedia fluffery.
In a just and honest society, dozens of new federal penitentiaries would be needed to contain all the politicians and public servants who did nothing less than Bernie Madoff or Enron executives.
Yes, there MAY be honest politicians. But no one will ever know if they don’t take the responible actions to tell the public “I’M NOT LIKE BARNEY FRANK, CHIS DODD, CHARLES WRANGEL, DIANNE FEINSTEIN”.
I think your partisanship is showing just a wee bit. Kind of dilutes your argument.
> I think your partisanship is showing just a wee bit. Kind of dilutes your argument.
So, you’re point is that I would have been on a higher intellectual and moral plane—way up there with you—if I declined to take a position on whether I was for or against political corruption?
I will leave it to you to be smart and non-judgemental, and to “dilute the arguments” of those who are unkind to your favorite rock star politicians.
I will continue to dismiss and condemn scummy politicians, even if the price is to endure your sneering condescension.
> Mike Honda (D-San Jose) was quoted before the vote as saying he could not “support this bill unless I am certain that it includes protections for the most vulnerable and the middle class.”
Destroying a functioning and effecient free market economy where the businesses are largely the product of middle class sweat, saving, and investment is not protecting the middle class.
The dim-witted and vacant Honda is just a sock puppet for the trust-fund children who imagine themselves to be expecially wise and entitled to run society.
People like:
Trust Fund Child Teddy Kennedy
Trust Fund Child Jerry Brown
Trust Fund Child Dianne Feinstein
Trust Funt Child Nancy Pelosi
etc, etc, etc.
These cretins who gas constantly about “creating jobs, jobs, jobs” have never worked at a McDonalds, and probably never even bought a McDonalds burger for themselves in their pampered lives.
It’s no wonder that they are so clueless about running an economy and creating jobs. They always got A’s on their term papers in college. How come people are so stupid that the won’t behave like their term paper says they’re supposed to behave?
” I don’t believe most of what you say is accurate in regards to campaign money. There are very strict rules as they pertain to campaign contributions.”
You might want to read how ” any retiring lawmaker with even an ounce of common sense can do just about anything they want with the unspent ( Campaign contribution ) money,”
Elected officials are different than public and have lots ways to get rich from political contributions that public don’t have
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 25 senators and representatives this year ( 2010 ) who have announced their retirement and who are collectively sitting on $31 million in authorized campaign committee cash.
While the F.E.C. clearly says campaign committee cash can’t be tapped for personal use, there are no such stipulations for certain political action committees, most controversially “leadership PACs” that elected officials can use to support various political causes other than their own.
Lucrative Loophole
Of the 25 members of Congress who have said they are stepping down, 18 have leadership PACs with a combined $850,000, according to CRP analysis.
“There’s a wide gap, if not a gulf, between what lawmakers can do with regular campaign money versus leadership PAC money,” said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Washington, D.C.-based CRP. “The question comes up: What can politicians do with the leftover PAC money, and the answer is pretty much whatever they want.”
Last March, the F.E.C. formally recommended to Congress that the loophole regarding personal use of leadership PAC money be eliminated, said Julia Queen, an F.E.C. spokeswoman. “Congress should amend [the F.E.C.‘s] prohibition of the personal use of campaign funds to extend its reach to all political committees,” the commission wrote.
In 2007, the Department of Justice reported “a dramatic rise in the number of cases in which candidates and campaign fiduciaries steal money that has been contributed to a candidate or political committee for the purpose of electing the candidate or the candidates supported by the political committee,” according to the F.E.C.
There was a time, three decades ago, when elected officials could permissably tap unspent campaign funds for personal use after they left office.
Starting in 1979, though, there have been continued efforts to outlaw unfettered personal spending of war chest money.
In 1989, Congress passed an Ethics Reform Act that was to close the door for good, repealling one last prior provision that allowed some funds to be tapped by lawmakers covered by a grandfather provision.
Kennedy’s Unspent Millions
Even though a retiring lawmaker can’t personally tap into authorized campaign committee funds upon leaving office the way they can leadership PACs, there nevertheless are some options for the clever and the determined.
For example, it is perfectly legal for leftover war chest money to be donated to a charity, including, say, a brand new charity a politician may be moved to create.
“Between these two sources of money, authorized campaign committee funds and leadership PACs, and considering that there are very minor restrictions, I would say that any retiring lawmaker with even an ounce of common sense can do just about anything they want with the unspent money,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington.
A very simple fix, tax all political contributions at the highest tax rate. At a 38% rate each million in contributions would bring in $380,000. Political contibutions are freely given and would not burden those who truly can not contribute. It would also raise money from the political interest groups and unions who contribute heavily and those of us tax payers who choose to support a candidate or cause. Just for example, the Police and Fire contributed 1 million to the anti measure V campaign, it could have put $380,000 in the City coffers.
So, all the preening drones of the ruling party are NOW – after three years of the clean, articulate, smartest and first black president ever—going to focus like a laser on “JOBS, JOBS, JOBS”.
I’m sorry. After three years of government stimulated poverty, there is nothing left in my stomach to puke up.
It’s so simple that a retard could understand it, but an Obama economic advisor with a PhD just can’t get it:
BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS WHEN THEY HIRE PEOPLE!
BUSINESS HIRE PEOPLE WHEN THEY EXPECT TO MAKE A PROFIT!
WELL, DUH!!!!
And what has been the centerpiece of Obama economic policy?
RAISE TAXES ON BUSINESSES!!!!
Here’s an intelligence test for Obama economic advisors with PhD’s:
Question: If businesses pay more taxes, do their profits go up or do they go down?
And for extra credit:
Question: If business profits go down, do businesses hire more people or do they hire fewer people?
Take your time and THINK about the answer.
The Marxist economic thinkers which are the basis of Obama economic policy think about business profits the same way that Puritains purportedly think about sex:
they worry that someone, somehere might be having fun (or making a profit) and they are determined to find out where it’s happening and then STOP IT!
The next time some Obama dork talks about “JOBS, JOBS, JOBS”, understand what they are really saying is “jobs, jobs, jobs BUT ONLY AFTER WE SMASH ALL THE CAPITALIST EXPLOITERS WITH HEAVY PROGRESSIVE TAX BURDENS AND PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING MORE PROFITS THAN WE THINK THEY SHOULD MAKE, WHICH IS NONE!”
No matter how the shyster Obama and the whole troop of flimflam artists in his party try to dress it up, their entire economic policy boils down to this:
Take money away from the people who are inclined to vote against Democrats and give it to those who are inclined to vote FOR Democrats.
That’s it. THAT’S their plan!!
Two years ago Rush Limbaugh was roundly criticized for saying that he hoped Obama would fail. Well right now Obama is succeeding at exactly what he set out to do. Rush was right for hoping that he would fail.
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Bernanke, Honda, Lofgren, Beall, etc. etc. etc… They’re all either hopelessly naive, lazy, hateful, stupid, economically illiterate, selfish, adolescently idealistic, spoiled, or a combination of some, or all of these characteristics.
But I guess they can’t help it. It’s not their fault. After all, they ARE Democrats.
> They’re all either hopelessly naive, lazy, hateful, stupid, economically illiterate, selfish, adolescently idealistic, spoiled, or a combination of some, or all of these characteristics.
Hmmmm. A lot to sort through.
Plus, you left out “narcissist, nihilist, and communist ideologue”
And, of course, just like with pizza there is the possibility of combinations.
I think the top category for Obama would be:
“narcissist-nihilist-communist ideologue”
Nancy Pelosi is a different story. I think I would put her down as:
“spoiled-selfish-trust fund child”, although she exhibits a strong detachment from reality. Maybe add in: “psychotic”.
And we can’t leave out the loud-mouthed and dim-witted Barbara Boxer. I think you’ve nailed her with:
“hateful-stupid-economically illiterate”
Put all of these people together in one room, and it’s no wonder they can come up with the Stupidist Economic Policy Ever!
It’s no accident.
At least the S&P showed enough courage to assess the obvious, a nation with increasingly substandard infrastructure, education, and social services along with increased incarceration will either increase revenue or be moved to 3rd World status.
An example of McConnell’s “creators” of wonderful jobs:
Jim Walton US$20.7 billion[2]
Christy Walton and family US$22.5 billion[2]
Alice Walton US$20.6 billion[2]
S. Robson Walton US$19.8 billion[2]
Ann Walton Kroenke US$3.2 billion[1]
Nancy Walton Laurie US$2.7 billion[1]
John Walton US$2.5 billion
Total: US$92 billion
Yes, it’s the Walmart family. Merry Christmas in August!
> Jim Walton US$20.7 billion[2]
> Christy Walton and family US$22.5 billion[2]
> Alice Walton US$20.6 billion[2]
> S. Robson Walton US$19.8 billion[2]
> Ann Walton Kroenke US$3.2 billion[1]
> Nancy Walton Laurie US$2.7 billion[1]
> John Walton US$2.5 billion
> Total: US$92 billion
Which would fund the Obama deficit for less than a month.
I’m sure the problem is that they were flying around in corporate jets. If Obama could just get them out of corporate jets, they would start spending their money on making new jobs, just like Obama wants.