The national debt has increased another trillion dollars since the Republicans took firm control of the House of Representatives. The House controls the country's pursestrings. They don't need the Senate or the President to begin to cut spending. Both the House and Senate are needed to approve or disapprove of government programs and the President has to sign the bills they pass. But the House controls the pursestrings to pay for them. And the Republicans aren't doing any better than the Democrats did when they had control for several years.

If you want to blame someone for the increases in the national debt in the last year or so...blame the Republican-controlled House of Representatives! Blame John Boehner. Blame Eric Cantor. Blame the Tea Party caucus. They're the ones responsible for continuing the spending for more than a year after they took control. Just as the Democrats should should be blamed for prior years. I know there are many that take great joy in blaming President Obama for the skyrocketing national debt. But he doesn't own the national checkbook. The House does. And the House is controlled by the party who many say is the answer to our spending problem. Hooey!

Does this come as a surprise? I know it doesn't to me. I never thought for an instant that a change in political control of the House would make a whit of difference. I know I said so here on this forum several times.

It's the same old story. If we believe what politicians running for office say or promise, we're as dumb as they know we are. If you think voting for a party or a candidate who promises fiscal reform if he's re-elected will actually work, you'll again prove them right.

Lots of ranting and lots of finger pointing and you want...........what??

The Tea Party Caucus is the only faction fighting for conservative principles, and the only hope to get our country and our Constitution back. It may be already too late, but that all there is to it at this point in our history.

The Republican Establishment is not necessarily of conservative ideology, but worlds better at this time than any Democrat in office or running for office.

Congress is 1/3rd of the government and that's who you blame. Doesn't seem logical or reasonable.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...Congress is 1/3rd of the government and that's who you blame. Doesn't seem logical or reasonable.

Richie, let's begin by me admitting that I was wrong in my criticism of the House as being totally responsible for government spending. I was wrong. Both spending and taxation is the responsibility and must be approved by both houses of Congress. So in that only the House is controlled by the Republicans, I was wrong in criticizing only them for the continuation of profligate spending by our government. Both houses of Congress and both political parties share the blame. I apologize.

But I don't agree that I was wrong in criticizing the Congress for our spending and deficit problems. Neither of the other two parts of the government have much to say about the fiscal avarice we've seen demonstrated in Washington for many years. Oh, the President starts the process by submitting a budget proposal, but for many years the Congress has rejected those proposals almost out of hand and proceeded to do their own form of "budgeting", often skipping the budgeting supposed to be done in House sub-committees and committees and moving directly to the creation of a gigantic and general "omnibus spending bill" containing very little specificity as to where money should be spent and how it will be paid for.

So the President has a little bit to do with spending--he starts the budgeting process and then finishes it by saying either yes or no, signing the spending bills or vetoing them. I can't see where the judicial branch has anything to say about fiscal issues at all and the Constitution grants them no such powers.

But I still assign most of the blame for the continuation of excessive government spending to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. If you'll recall, it was the Republican leadership who couldn't reach any sort of reasonable compromise on the reduction of spending while debating a recent "continuing resolution" authorizing government spending. It was the Republican-controlled House that said "absolutely no" to any kind of tax reform. And it was the Republican-controlled House that after months of back and forth debate among themselves could only come up with $38.5 billion in cuts over a ten year future period. That was less than a 1% cut in spending. And they delayed reaching agreement on those puny spending cuts so long that it lead to the loss of the country's AAA credit rating! After the fact analysis of their "cuts" by the Government Accounting Office showed that in fact there were no cuts at all. It was the same old phony baloney smoke and mirrors, find the cuts under the moving shells game played by the Democrats before them, as well as what the GOP did when they controlled the Congress before the Democrats, during the Bush years.

So yes, I'm blaming the Congress...and the Congress alone. I'm specifically NOT blaming the President. Could he have used the bully pulpit more effectively? That's a good question. It seems to me that whenever he tried--remember the "grand bargain"?--his attempts got swept away in partisan politics. There was an absolute refusal of the House to try to use the POTUS' proposal as a negotiating starting point. It was a "no, my way or the highway" type of legislative statesmanship.

So to respond to your comment...yes I am blaming the Congress.

Now, if we keep our eyes and ears open and try to pry ourselves away from the negative primary election advertising, the whole process for 2012 starts again in a week or so. The President is required by law to present his budget proposal by February 1. It tells Congress what the President recommends for overall federal fiscal policy, as established by three main components: (1) how much money the federal government should spend on public purposes; (2) how much it should take in as tax revenues; and (3) how much of a deficit (or surplus) the federal government should run. Let's see how much thought the Congress gives to that budget proposal.

I'm guessing about a minute and a half before the politicizing of President Obama's 2012 budget proposal begins.

So the President has a little bit to do with spending--he starts the budgeting process and then finishes it by saying either yes or no, signing the spending bills or vetoing them. I can't see where the judicial branch has anything to say about fiscal issues at all and the Constitution grants them no such powers.

I think the thing that is missing from your post is that the President and his party are the ones who put the political pressure on the other party by continually bombarding us in the press with how bad the Rebs are if they DON'T do what they want.

I think that that you are right that both side are not doing all they can do to fix this but I think that the Rebs do a lot of the things they do to survive the attacks from the left, including the pres., when they go against the left and the left leaning press.

That make the president a major player in how the deficit grows, not just the House of Rep.

Originally Posted by notlongnow

I think the thing that is missing from your post is that the President and his party are the ones who put the political pressure on the other party by continually bombarding us in the press with how bad the Rebs are if they DON'T do what they want.

I think that that you are right that both side are not doing all they can do to fix this but I think that the Rebs do a lot of the things they do to survive the attacks from the left, including the pres., when they go against the left and the left leaning press.

That make the president a major player in how the deficit grows, not just the House of Rep.

When one party has a clear and strong majority in a house of Congress, like the Republicans do in the House of Representatives, they have little to worry about with regard to "attacks from the left". They can pass pretty much whatever legislation they desire. The rules of the House are different from the rules in the Senate. With the Republicans in control, they control both all the committees as well as the agenda for putting legislation up for a vote.

If the GOP has had a problem, it's that the party is so fractured that they can't legislate with anything close to a clear agenda. The centrist Republicans can't get along with the Tea Partiers and they refuse to compromise with one another. Furthermore, anything the House does pass has to clear the hurdle of a Democratically-controlled Senate with their arcane rules and the right of any single Senator to block anything as well as their right to filibuster. The House would either have to pass legislation that had a reasonable chance of also passing in the Senate, or at least be close enough to arrive at something acceptable coming out of a conference committee. The problem is that both houses are so ideologically out at the edges that they can never seem to agree on anything...other than continually passing "continuing resoultions" to continue to spend more and more money.

The problem is with the Congress, not the President!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

[/I]Richie, let's begin by me admitting that I was wrong in my criticism of the House as being totally responsible for government spending. I was wrong. Both spending and taxation is the responsibility and must be approved by both houses of Congress. So in that only the House is controlled by the Republicans, I was wrong in criticizing only them for the continuation of profligate spending by our government. Both houses of Congress and both political parties share the blame. I apologize.

But I don't agree that I was wrong in criticizing the Congress for our spending and deficit problems. Neither of the other two parts of the government have much to say about the fiscal avarice we've seen demonstrated in Washington for many years. Oh, the President starts the process by submitting a budget proposal, but for many years the Congress has rejected those proposals almost out of hand and proceeded to do their own form of "budgeting", often skipping the budgeting supposed to be done in House sub-committees and committees and moving directly to the creation of a gigantic and general "omnibus spending bill" containing very little specificity as to where money should be spent and how it will be paid for.

So the President has a little bit to do with spending--he starts the budgeting process and then finishes it by saying either yes or no, signing the spending bills or vetoing them. I can't see where the judicial branch has anything to say about fiscal issues at all and the Constitution grants them no such powers.

But I still assign most of the blame for the continuation of excessive government spending to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. If you'll recall, it was the Republican leadership who couldn't reach any sort of reasonable compromise on the reduction of spending while debating a recent "continuing resolution" authorizing government spending. It was the Republican-controlled House that said "absolutely no" to any kind of tax reform. And it was the Republican-controlled House that after months of back and forth debate among themselves could only come up with $38.5 billion in cuts over a ten year future period. That was less than a 1% cut in spending. And they delayed reaching agreement on those puny spending cuts so long that it lead to the loss of the country's AAA credit rating! After the fact analysis of their "cuts" by the Government Accounting Office showed that in fact there were no cuts at all. It was the same old phony baloney smoke and mirrors, find the cuts under the moving shells game played by the Democrats before them, as well as what the GOP did when they controlled the Congress before the Democrats, during the Bush years.

So yes, I'm blaming the Congress...and the Congress alone. I'm specifically NOT blaming the President. Could he have used the bully pulpit more effectively? That's a good question. It seems to me that whenever he tried--remember the "grand bargain"?--his attempts got swept away in partisan politics. There was an absolute refusal of the House to try to use the POTUS' proposal as a negotiating starting point. It was a "no, my way or the highway" type of legislative statesmanship.

So to respond to your comment...yes I am blaming the Congress.

Now, if we keep our eyes and ears open and try to pry ourselves away from the negative primary election advertising, the whole process for 2012 starts again in a week or so. The President is required by law to present his budget proposal by February 1. It tells Congress what the President recommends for overall federal fiscal policy, as established by three main components: (1) how much money the federal government should spend on public purposes; (2) how much it should take in as tax revenues; and (3) how much of a deficit (or surplus) the federal government should run. Let's see how much thought the Congress gives to that budget proposal.

I'm guessing about a minute and a half before the politicizing of President Obama's 2012 budget proposal begins.

Thanks for the apology, but it wasn't necessary. It's only conversation and not a personal matter between us. I appreciate the graciousness never the less.

OK; in regard to the rest of this post.

Much of it seems a bit convoluted and containing what I think of as convenient terminology.

"Tax Reform": you are using this term to condemn the Republican Congress, and specifically in your OP, the Tea Party Caucus. Why don't you and the media and the rest of the Democrat Establishment say what you really mean.
You mean tax increases. Tax reform is just the convenient term so that you don't appear asking for what you're asking for.

Thankfully, at least for a time, the Tea Party Caucus' rising influence caused the Republican Establishment leadership, which is complicit in overspending as you point out, to step back and stand on a "firm" ground of "no new taxes". Unlike you, I take this as a good thing.

These tax increases, or new taxes, are always so "reasonably" presented as being coupled with "spending cuts". The rub?; these spending cuts are projected to come into play incrementally over time, and the tax increases are immediate and permanent. In the years ahead the spending cuts are systematically discarded, by and large, while the tax increases (new taxes) are with us forever.

The President's budget? You're speaking about the same President who ballooned our debt and deficits? The same President who is asking for over a Trillion Dollars more debt ceiling. God help us.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Thanks for the apology, but it wasn't necessary. It's only conversation and not a personal matter between us. I appreciate the graciousness never the less.

OK; in regard to the rest of this post.

Much of it seems a bit convoluted and containing what I think of as convenient terminology.

"Tax Reform": you are using this term to condemn the Republican Congress, and specifically in your OP, the Tea Party Caucus. Why don't you and the media and the rest of the Democrat Establishment say what you really mean.
You mean tax increases. Tax reform is just the convenient term so that you don't appear asking for what you're asking for.

Thankfully, at least for a time, the Tea Party Caucus' rising influence caused the Republican Establishment leadership, which is complicit in overspending as you point out, to step back and stand on a "firm" ground of "no new taxes". Unlike you, I take this as a good thing.

These tax increases, or new taxes, are always so "reasonably" presented as being coupled with "spending cuts". The rub?; these spending cuts are projected to come into play incrementally over time, and the tax increases are immediate and permanent. In the years ahead the spending cuts are systematically discarded, by and large, while the tax increases (new taxes) are with us forever.

The President's budget? You're speaking about the same President who ballooned our debt and deficits? The same President who is asking for over a Trillion Dollars more debt ceiling. God help us.

Some brief responses...

• Tax Reform…I mean a total reform of the taxation system, including the elimination of lobbied (bought and paid for) benefits to corporations; the elimination of subsidies, like all of the agricultural subsidies; a re-do of the tax rates, probably lowering the corporate tax rates; modification of the tax code that permits U.S. corporations to escape paying taxes on foreign earnings (thereby encouraging moving business outside the U.S.); and yes, an increase of the taxation of the wealthiest Americans (letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a good start).

• "the President who ballooned our budget"…once again, the POTUS can't sign one check issued by the Treasury. He has two shots at fiscal policy--his budget proposal and then whether he decides to veto the spending and taxation legislation ultimately passed by Congress. It's the Congress that does all the damage, not the President!

• The Tea Party…I agree with much of what they stand for, but not their approach to achieving it. It seems to me that by assuming a stance of compromise, moving towards their goals over a period of time, they could have become a more important factor in the House and in the Congress. But their "my way or the highway" approach to legislation, according to most of the election watchers, has turned off the public and may well result in the return of control of the House to the Democrats.

• The disconnect between tax increases and spending cuts?…I've negotiated lots of contracts in my day. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if agreed upon spending cuts fail to materialize while tax increases immediately become permanent, it's because the Congress did a crappy job of writing the legislation. You want my guess why that happens? Because that's the objective they actually intended--continued spending and more money to do it with!!

• The President's budget?…let's watch and see what he proposes in about a week. And then watch how the Congressional demagogs respond. We both know what's going to happen. I would only hope that he has the cajones to veto what they come up with and send them back to do a more responsible job. If that means shutting down the entire government for awhile, I'll go along. I can live without my Social Security check and I just won't fly if there aren't any air controllers.

I like a bologna sandwich but I call it as I see it.

First: I agree that Boehner and Cantor and McConnell are responsible. SO are the dems and obama.. didnt you notice they voted for AND SIGNED the budget too?
NOT the tea party caucus. Most (not all) of the tea party caucus voted against the budget and THEY were branded by both dems and obama and the media because they were wanting to "shut the government down". They just wanted to reduce it. The dems and repubs said they would shut the gov down if the tea party got its way. The repub leadership chickened out and voted for their relection instead of doing what they promised which was to reduce the spending. Then they lied to us about how much they saved us.

Second: The dems and Obama INSISTED on big budgets and only wanted to TAX THE RICH before they would agree to anything. They are not interested in cutting the budget. They want to get reelected using class warfare.. simple as that and they knew the repubs would cave on spending before they would agree to tax increases on the rich. These save billions over 10 years deals are just scams and everyone knows it. They save nothing.

Third: Vote out everyone.. both parties.. EVERYONE that voted in favor of the budget this year.. dems, repubs and chicken tea partiers... if you are serious about TRYING to save our nation from financial ruin.

The financial crisis is NOT over. They bought us more time with more borrowed and printed money and using public money to pay the private debts and investments that went bad. The printing press is running full blast by the man behind the curtain.. and it WILL destroy our money. The fed is destroying this country and because people do not understand it or are not willing to take the pain it would take to fix it.. QE3 and secret deals are coming and the HOLE we have fallen into is way beyond repair.
Here is the only reason we are not in a depression:
As long as Europe is worse than us, and investors do not trust the chinese political system, investors have no where else to go and we will have a little more time.. but only a little.
No one can continue to borrow 40% of what they spend.. year after year. Not even the US gov. There is no recovery. Every good number is just a sign that the FED printing and government spending is still flowing.. and the current 16 trillion dollar debt will soon be 20 trillion.
The FED is buying HALF of the debt this country sells each year.. do you understand.. our printing presses have bought HALF of our own debt.. See the problem? Better enjoy your lifestyle while you can.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The national debt has increased another trillion dollars since the Republicans took firm control of the House of Representatives. The House controls the country's pursestrings. They don't need the Senate or the President to begin to cut spending. Both the House and Senate are needed to approve or disapprove of government programs and the President has to sign the bills they pass. But the House controls the pursestrings to pay for them. And the Republicans aren't doing any better than the Democrats did when they had control for several years.

If you want to blame someone for the increases in the national debt in the last year or so...blame the Republican-controlled House of Representatives! Blame John Boehner. Blame Eric Cantor. Blame the Tea Party caucus. They're the ones responsible for continuing the spending for more than a year after they took control. Just as the Democrats should should be blamed for prior years. I know there are many that take great joy in blaming President Obama for the skyrocketing national debt. But he doesn't own the national checkbook. The House does. And the House is controlled by the party who many say is the answer to our spending problem. Hooey!

Does this come as a surprise? I know it doesn't to me. I never thought for an instant that a change in political control of the House would make a whit of difference. I know I said so here on this forum several times.

It's the same old story. If we believe what politicians running for office say or promise, we're as dumb as they know we are. If you think voting for a party or a candidate who promises fiscal reform if he's re-elected will actually work, you'll again prove them right.

Originally Posted by JimJoe

...Vote out everyone.. both parties.. EVERYONE that voted in favor of the budget this year.. dems, repubs and chicken tea partiers... if you are serious about TRYING to save our nation from financial ruin....

You have my enthusiastic support on this one. If it can be done, the result might not be better, but it surely wouldn't be as bad as if we sent the same gang back for another two, four or six years of accomplishing nothing except more increased spending.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

....

.....The problem is with the Congress, not the President!

Wrong. Up until one year ago, the President and the majority in both houses of Congress were the same party. Two thirds of that whole group are still Democrats. Cutting spending is the last thing they want.

None of this is helping; and there's so much misinterpretation and misinformation and knee-jerk reaction to insufficient information.

Of course that merely my opinion and I'm fine with everyone oversimplifying solutions to perceived economic injustices.

I also like playing with words, but I say what I mean, regardless.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Wrong. Up until one year ago, the President and the majority in both houses of Congress were the same party. Two thirds of that whole group are still Democrats. Cutting spending is the last thing they want.

Yeah, but it's the Congress that passes the legislation that permits the spending. The President's only role is to either sign what's been passed, or veto the bill(s). You can try to blame everything on the Democrats, but the Republicans have been in firm control of the House for more than a year and during that time the national debt increased by another trillion dollars. A GOP-controlled House of Representatives is proving to be no better, no more fiscally responsible, than the Democrats who preceded them.

Generally, the Congress makes sure to set content in the bills they send to the President, or the timing of when they pass the legislation, to make it very difficult for the President to actually veto a bill. They either include stuff in the bill that the POTUS and his party want, or they time sending the bill up in such a way that if the bill were vetoed, the government would shut down or some other dire event would result.

Think of all the legislation that was passed at the absolute last minute just in the last few months.

• Congress put off increasing the debt limit so long that we lost our AAA credit rating as the result.

• Congress never would reach agreement on spending cuts, passing it off to a super committee, who then couldn't reach agreement themselves, the result being some very undesirable "automatic" budget cuts (like slashing the military budget to the point that even Obama's Secretary of Defense says the result will be irreversible weakening of our national defense).

• Even this last "continuing resolution" to fund the continued operation of the government was put off until most of those who voted were on their way out the door for Christmas vacation, not to return to Washington for about three weeks. Had the resoultion not been passed, the government would have shut down.

No, I'm not blaming any particular political party--they're both at fault! But the Congress is the primary source of our fiscal problems, not the President.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

.......
....No, I'm not blaming any particular political party--they're both at fault! But the Congress is the primary source of our fiscal problems, not the President.

Our fiscal problems are profound, but they are not the root of our nation's problems.

Our fiscal problems are deeply rooted in a crisis of morality.

Amoral leadership and lack of moral foundation in the individual members of both the Congress and the Presidency are the bigger problems.

The Puritan ethics of hard work and THRIFT were a large part of what made this country great.

These values stated by Benjamin Franklin are completely missing from today's Congress and Presidency, and this is why we have this fiscal cancer spreading through our nation's body:

"A penny saved is a penny earned.

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.

God helps them that help themselves.
from Algernon Sidney (1622–1683)

Work as if you were to live a hundred years,
Pray as if you were to die tomorrow.

To err is human, to repent divine; to persist devilish.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
At the signing of the Declaration of Independence

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power."


Hollywood Greed has succeeded in debasing America's thought, work ethic and sense of fiscal responsibility.

Hollywood Greed funds politicians.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Our fiscal problems are profound, but they are not the root of our nation's problems.

Our fiscal problems are deeply rooted in a crisis of morality.

Amoral leadership and lack of moral foundation in the individual members of both the Congress and the Presidency are the bigger problems.

The Puritan ethics of hard work and THRIFT were a large part of what made this country great.

These values stated by Benjamin Franklin are completely missing from today's Congress and Presidency, and this is why we have this fiscal cancer spreading through our nation's body:

"A penny saved is a penny earned.

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.

God helps them that help themselves.
from Algernon Sidney (1622–1683)

Work as if you were to live a hundred years,
Pray as if you were to die tomorrow.

To err is human, to repent divine; to persist devilish.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
At the signing of the Declaration of Independence

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power."


Hollywood Greed has succeeded in debasing America's thought, work ethic and sense of fiscal responsibility.

Hollywood Greed funds politicians.

I sure agree with that. It probably doesn't get anywhere near enough discussion or attention. It's too bad when movie characters like Jerry McGuire ("...show me the money!") and Gordon Gecko ("...greed is good.") are popular heros with our young people. It's going to take a long time to turn that around. Maybe a meltdown of our financial system like what's going on in Greece will force people to get a job--any kind of a job--with getting very, very hungry as the only alternative. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I am convinced and troubled by what I see is a TOTAL and complete lack of anybody even looking for middle ground.

Our "leadership" that used to look for that does not exist any longer. This forum is just one shining example of what appears to be a problem that cannot be fixed.

From the White House to those of us who vote, we ignore any chance of compromise; we have become so mired in our party, ideological thinking we are doomed to simply go the same direction unless something or somebody wakes everyone up.

We have stopped listening to anyone or anything that we do not agree with