Obama’s spend crazy gets major blow when House defeats debt increase request 318-97

Let’s look at ho CNN, one of those that constantly feels things go bad for the Obama Admin unexpectedly, puts the story into perspective right here:

Washington (CNN) — In a symbolic vote to send a message to budget negotiators, the House on Tuesday defeated a measure to raise the national debt ceiling without any accompanying deficit or spending reduction provisions.

The Republican-controlled House voted 318-97 on the legislation that would have raised the federal government’s debt limit by approximately $2.4 trillion.

Under rules for the vote set by the GOP leadership, the measure needed at least two-thirds support to pass, ensuring it had no chance for approval.

Symbolic vote? Heh, if a nuke going off is symbolic I guess. And WTF is it with this attempt to pretend the GOP rigged the rules to prevent this form passing? 82 democrats, including Pelosi, Hoyer, and DNC chief Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, voted with republicans and the American people and against the WH on this, leaving the other 97 donkeys to piss on our legs and tell us not to worry because its just warm rain by voting for this, and another 7 to vote present, in honor of Obama’s past votes of the same kind, I am sure, and 6 to not even bother showing up. The bad guys here aren’t the republicans you dimwits, no, the bad guys are the morons that think we can just keep spending our kid’s future into servitude to our debt holders.

The vote was scheduled by Republican leaders to show that any attempt to divorce an increase in the debt ceiling from spending reduction efforts — a move initially favored by the Obama White House — cannot win congressional approval.

At least the reality that the collectivist money printers are not going to get to keep spending like they know an asteroid is going to wipe civilization of the planet in a few months anyway, so there isn’t any reason to worry about the long term consequences of their Keynesian bullshit, is sinking in. And Obama didn’t favor this shit “initially”. The WH has wanted this debt bump so the democrats could keep playing the games they have been playing for the last 3 or so years with the budget. Spending in ways that would make drunken sailors hitting the red district after months at sea look like fiscal conservatives. The other side?

Democrats called the move a dangerous political stunt that could rattle financial markets.

“We understand the views that are being expressed” by the vote, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters before the vote. “We share the concerns that drive those views. (But) in the end, the debt ceiling has to be raised.”

Yeah, that’s why 82 of them House donkeys went on the record for that “dangerous political stunt”. And no, the debt should not be raised. This out of control spending has to be rolled back, and rolled back drastically. We can’t afford it. That’s the facts.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with congressional Republicans on Wednesday as part of the administration’s ongoing debt-ceiling and related budget negotiations. Vice President Joe Biden has been holding similar talks with a bipartisan congressional delegation in recent weeks.

Hopefully he will get the message. Oh, and if you have a chance read the comments on that CNN article. Some of those libs make our old resident fool Moogoo look like a freaking Noble Peace Prize winner for all that is worth these days. Anyway, now, maybe the crazy spenders will finally agree to real cuts and we can start moving things in the right direction.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    “We understand the views that are being expressed” by the vote, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters before the vote. “We share the concerns that drive those views. (But) in the end, the debt ceiling has to be raised.”

    Actually, it doesn’t “have” to be raised at all. In all reality it should be rolled back quite a bit and the whole marxist/keynesian mindset that got it there needs to be jettisoned.

    Go fuck yourself with a sharp stick Mr Press Secretary…

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    Just to clarify, what is all this additional spending (“in ways that would make drunken sailors hitting the red district after months at sea look like fiscal conservatives”) that you refer to Alex? I mean specifically.

    •It is true that the federal government is spending 4.6% of GDP more in 2011 than it did in 2008, but 67% of that is due to built-in increases in the mandatory programs, primarily Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the debt. Another 15% of that increase is due to increased Defense spending. (OMB Table 8.4)
    •Non-defense discretionary spending increased only 0.7% of GDP from 2008 to 2011. That is, 85% of the increase in spending was either outside the President’s control or was due to increased Defense spending.

    At one extreme we have Obama’s proposed budget for 2012, which the CBO scored as costing 24.2% of GDP in 2021. At the other “extreme,” we have Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan, which the CBO scored as costing 20.25% of GDP in 2022. Obama’s Deficit Commission proposed spending 21% of GDP.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_article_liberals_are_too_s.html

    At least the reality that the collectivist money printers are not going to get to keep spending like they know an asteroid is going to wipe civilization of the planet in a few months anyway, so there isn’t any reason to worry about the long term consequences of their Keynesian bullshit, is sinking in.

    Of far greater concern to everyone should be the long term consequences of climate change denial bullshit. Whether the budget would be few percent of GDP lower under a Republican President is kinda meaningless given the obvious problems down the road.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    Just to clarify, what is all this additional spending (“in ways that would make drunken sailors hitting the red district after months at sea look like fiscal conservatives”) that you refer to Alex? I mean specifically.

    •It is true that the federal government is spending 4.6% of GDP more in 2011 than it did in 2008, but 67% of that is due to built-in increases in the mandatory programs, primarily Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the debt. Another 15% of that increase is due to increased Defense spending. (OMB Table 8.4)
    •Non-defense discretionary spending increased only 0.7% of GDP from 2008 to 2011. That is, 85% of the increase in spending was either outside the President’s control or was due to increased Defense spending.

    Man talk about your excuse making. There was an incredible $1.7 trillion jump from the 2009 to the 2010 budget. I would love to see a breakdown that shows 85% that $1.7 trillion jump coming from the things you blame. My information puts it all on massive entitlement growth outside Medicare and SS – welfare, unemployment benefits, make more government work, and such programs – as the democrats tried to shore up their voter base with bigger handouts.

    So, how about rolling back the $1.7 trillion in new spending that got tacked on after Obama took to living in the WH in 2009? It sure would be a good start. Mandatory increases are a joke if you have no money to pay for them. Can you tell your bank that’s why you are spending more than you get as income and have them then not tell you that you still owe them and are cut off? I certainly can not. Neither should a bunch of Keynesian assholes

    People now see SS as a retirement plan, when FDR who put it in place, held no such illusion and basically made it akin to a lottery for those that could outlive the high cutoff age they had originally. The original worst case projections for SS had one out of 32 people that paid in ever collecting, and then for a very short period. Today that age would have to be around 90 for SS to again end up pulling in money and paying out at the same ratio it did when it was created. Instead the left turned it into a piss poor retirement vehicle for everyone out of political expediency: it allowed the politicians to grow government and their power. It’s an unsustainable pyramid scheme that would laqnd any citizen that did something like it in jail. It should be revamped completely and government should get out of the retirement business.

    And don’t get me on the subject of Medicare either. Why the hell is government providing anything other than catastrophic healthcare coverage for anyone? The skyrocketing cost of healthcare is directly tied to government’s attempt to make it a right. Every time government tells someone they have to do something the incentive to do it efficiently and at lower cost vanishes. Definitely kill Obamacare ASAP too.

    Personally I would like to see spending all rolled back to the level they spent back in the late 1980s.

    At one extreme we have Obama’s proposed budget for 2012, which the CBO scored as costing 24.2% of GDP in 2021. At the other “extreme,” we have Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan, which the CBO scored as costing 20.25% of GDP in 2022. Obama’s Deficit Commission proposed spending 21% of GDP.

    The problem is that government’s take of the GDP is around 19%, a number I already find too high to begin with. Anything higher than that 19% is going to also disproportionally and adversely affect the economy. 24.2% of GDP is insane. Period.

    Of far greater concern to everyone should be the long term consequences of climate change denial bullshit.

    Right…. I have a Unicorn farts powered car I can sell you for half a million dollars. Heh, I sure hope you were joking.

    Whether the budget would be few percent of GDP lower under a Republican President is kinda meaningless given the obvious problems down the road.

    I am far more concerned about an economic collapse than a fantasy cult created by watermelons – green on the outside but red as soon as you scratch the surface – so they can force upon sane people the insanity of a collectivist one world government that controls people’s live by limiting the access of those they don’t like to cheap energy while making the elite scum pushing this vile agenda stinking rich. Fuck that.

    Thumb up 2

  4. CM

    Man talk about your excuse making.

    WTF? Where was my ‘excuse making’?

    There was an incredible $1.7 trillion jump from the 2009 to the 2010 budget.

    Ok, so precisely what was this additional spending? You seem to know. This is what I’m asking.

    I would love to see a breakdown that shows 85% that $1.7 trillion jump coming from the things you blame.

    Again, WTF are you talking about with ‘blame’?
    It’s all here, according to American Thinker:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
    Where do you get your $1.7 trillion from, and what is it made up of?

    My information puts it all on massive entitlement growth outside Medicare and SS – welfare, unemployment benefits, make more government work, and such programs – as the democrats tried to shore up their voter base with bigger handouts.

    Where is this information?
    Were they all new programs, and what about increases in servicing debt and defence spending? By the way you’re writing, you KNOW it’s none of these, despite what that American Thinker piece states.

    So, how about rolling back the $1.7 trillion in new spending that got tacked on after Obama took to living in the WH in 2009?

    Depends what the spending was I guess.

    It sure would be a good start. Mandatory increases are a joke if you have no money to pay for them.

    Doesn’t change the fact that they are mandatory though does it. And that increases are a joke is your opinion (which you’re fully entitled to of course, don’t get me wrong).

    Can you tell your bank that’s why you are spending more than you get as income and have them then not tell you that you still owe them and are cut off? I certainly can not.

    No, but my bank is a purely commercial enterprise. My government is entirely different. Apples and oramges.

    Neither should a bunch of Keynesian assholes

    People who prefer a different economic model to you are inherently assholes? Wow, that’s a bit harsh isn’t it?

    People now see SS as a retirement plan, when FDR who put it in place, held no such illusion and basically made it akin to a lottery for those that could outlive the high cutoff age they had originally. The original worst case projections for SS had one out of 32 people that paid in ever collecting, and then for a very short period. Today that age would have to be around 90 for SS to again end up pulling in money and paying out at the same ratio it did when it was created. Instead the left turned it into a piss poor retirement vehicle for everyone out of political expediency: it allowed the politicians to grow government and their power. It’s an unsustainable pyramid scheme that would laqnd any citizen that did something like it in jail. It should be revamped completely and government should get out of the retirement business.

    Yep, can’t argue with the need for western countries to revamp their SS programs. They certainly need to be economically sustainable. In the US it’s 20% of the federal budget. But we all need to come up with good alternatives first. In the US Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40% of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty. So how do you think it should be revamped while keeping retired people out of poverty?

    The skyrocketing cost of healthcare is directly tied to government’s attempt to make it a right.

    Can you provide evidence of this?

    Every time government tells someone they have to do something the incentive to do it efficiently and at lower cost vanishes.

    I understand the theory/logic, but is that the reality? We in NZ have a government agency which buys and funds drugs, and it saves us billions.

    Personally I would like to see spending all rolled back to the level they spent back in the late 1980s.

    Do you mean as a percentage of GDP?

    The problem is that government’s take of the GDP is around 19%, a number I already find too high to begin with. Anything higher than that 19% is going to also disproportionally and adversely affect the economy. 24.2% of GDP is insane. Period.

    Why is it insane? Why those percentages specifically? What happens at 24% that doesn’t at 19%?

    Right…. I have a Unicorn farts powered car I can sell you for half a million dollars. Heh, I sure hope you were joking.

    Why do you hope that? If you’re concerned about costs, you should be very concerned about the costs associated with living with the effects of climate change. If you’re so concerned about economic waste, you should be advocating mitigation and adaption measures now. They’ll only get more and more expensive.

    I am far more concerned about an economic collapse than a fantasy cult created by watermelons – green on the outside but red as soon as you scratch the surface – so they can force upon sane people the insanity of a collectivist one world government that controls people’s live by limiting the access of those they don’t like to cheap energy while making the elite scum pushing this vile agenda stinking rich. Fuck that.

    That’s illogical and irrational. Sorry, but public policy decisions don’t influence physics and chemistry.

    Thumb up 0