TexasCHLforum.com

Who is fiscally conservative, in Dems and GOP? Is there such a ground for new party. Fiscally conservative party?

Beiruty wrote:Who is fiscally conservative, in Dems and GOP? Is there such a ground for new party. Fiscally conservative party?

The election rules and the way the rules are set up for the caucus' in the house and senate are not conducive to a third party at all. I agree with you 100%...it is needed. But the deck is very strategically stacked against it unless America sends a plurality of 3rd party candidates so that they could force some rules changes.

loadedliberal wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: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.

The raise revenues cry is pure hogwash. The entire fortunes of the 10 richest people in America would not pay the interest on the debt for three months. If you confiscated all the wealth of every US millionaire, it would cover 1/6th of our current obligations for Medicare and Social Security. You can raise revenues until there's none left to raise and it won't solve the problem.

If you're dating a woman and she spends 42% more every month than you make, what are you going to do? Get a second job? Or take her credit cards away? If you do the former, guess what she's going to do. Spend even more.

The government can no more escape the laws of economics than you or I.

If a Greece is not a lesson to learn, those who are running the show are idiots!

Beiruty wrote:Who is fiscally conservative, in Dems and GOP? Is there such a ground for new party. Fiscally conservative party?

There were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans who voted against the bill to raise the debt ceiling. I would assume that at least some of those votes were motivated by fiscal conservatism. Others voted for it because they felt it was the best deal they could get. I think it's obvious, from the level of debt we have (now more than 100% of GDP) that the obvious majority of both houses and most Presidents could not correctly be called fiscal conservatives. Of course in today's warped political atmosphere a fiscal conservative is someone who wants to go broke more slowly.

Those who refuse to admit/see that both parties are equally at fault are the real problem in America. If we could get those people to either wake up or go away, we could solve a lot of problems.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

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

Sign me up.

When the founders had their Philadelphia Convention,in 1787, they didn't invite King George or his men. To be effective, any new constitutional convention should follow that same model. The politicians who created the current crop of problems cannot be allowed to "contribute to" (i.e. screw up) a convention, if we desire productive change.

However, I believe a far better approach would be to enforce the current Constitution of the United States, as amended, and enforce it literally. That would cut a great deal of Federal spending (and departments, and jobs, and handouts, and pork, and debt.) Enforcing the Tenth Amendment alone would probably cut Federal spending by half.

.


It's no ones fault

you see

that AAA rating

we used to have

He inherited it from Bush

Burma Shave

loadedliberal wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: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.

Are you saying that every household in America who operates off a budget and lives within their means is doing it wrong?

Can you eloborate on why it's not a good idea? Are you afraid that holding government accountable and to a budget is somehow going to take away from your quality of life here in America?

If you're dating a woman and she spends 42% more every month than you make, what are you going to do? Get a second job? Or take her credit cards away? If you do the former, guess what she's going to do. Spend even more.

The government can no more escape the laws of economics than you or I.

The sticky thing is that the career politicians currently in office at any time, in the absence of a balanced budget amendment, ARE able to escape these laws for the short term, foisting the financial obligations on future generations. Future career politicians are then under pressure to keep things going because cutting ANY governmental program has been viewed as akin to political suicide, so further deficit spending continues. I am not aware of ANY career politician regardless of party who has the character to not just debate fiscal responsibility but follow it up with a consistently strong voting record to support it. Face it, in this era of government largesse (pork barrel politics) any representative is deemed ineffective by his own constituency if he doesn't bring home some federal funding and will not be in office long. The base problem, therefore, is a ruling class of career politicians, who have created the current system out of their own selfishness in the name of serving the country. Mandatory term limits are needed at least as much as a balance budget amendment to change the current status quo in the political climate.

The entire voting populace must be roused to face economic realities, and I am glad S&P stood by their pronouncement and downgraded the US credit rating. Maybe it will be one small alarm that wakes folks up.

loadedliberal wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

loadedliberal wrote: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.

There was no outrage because his tax cuts actually increased revenues. Read the facts, without the political spin. Argue about the war as necessary or unnecessary. That's fine. But his tax cuts actually increased revenues. That's a fact. What is also a fact is that Obama doubled down and outspent even Bush, and by a very considerable margin. So take that down the pike.

....and you still are trying to make everything "Bush's fault" instead of addressing the issue? Puh-leeze. That's one of the reasons that democrats are going to get creamed in 2012........they keep blaming stuff on Bush, instead of their lame policies. The public isn't blind. Obama, and a ton of democrat congressmen are going down next year. I'm going to enjoy this one.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

...Obama, and a ton of democrat congressmen are going down next year. I'm going to enjoy this one.

That won't happen if the GOP doesn't stop its infighting and come up with viable candidates whom the voters can believe in and rally around.

BTW, we don't need tax credits, we need COLA's to our long invested SS earnings and Mrs' Oldgringo's meager state pension. I suspect that we're not alone in our concerns.

You know there is enough dirt from this to get both parties dirty. Nonsense spending, entire departments that don't need to be in existence, other agenices with so much cash they spend their time on petty little things (like prosecuting back yard rabbit breeders, raiding small dairies, and handing out $550 fines for rescuing woodpeckers). There is a ton that can be trimmed everywhere. We cannot support this size gov't it must shrink. That is what the Tea Party has been useful for, making that the topic of conversation. A BBA would help, but even that might not solve the proble. As far as war and the BBA, well war with China is a terrifying prospect sort of a TEOTWAWKI event. Maybe not so bad in 100 years when because of their horrendous population polices they will shrink down to 100 million people (their stats--not mine). Still scary stuff! A BBA is going to be the least of our problems then.

To be fair, you can't really blame the politicians without blaming the voters who demand they continue the irresponsible spending. It's true, we're heading down a path to ruin, but I think we're being pushed, not being pulled.

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

I'm sorry, but that's what parents say to their children when denying a request, hardly sufficient to support a position on a subject like a BBA. A BB worked for Texas until 1982 when Mark White was elected. A day I remember vividly due to a severe blue norther blew in and ruined a good fishing trip. It turned out to be an ill wind as BB went away and we got introduced to such things as user fees, increased sales taxes,massive additions to the list of items to be taxed, etc. For those of us that pay income tax we now get to fork over to the government up to 8.25% of what's left of every dollar we spend except some food items and medicine. Is Texas a better place now?

The Federal spending in the last 2 1/2 years has been exponential. Even without assigning blame the math takes over.