Debt Ceiling. Limit, Save, Grow Act.

[DriftBusta]

What is it with people from Minnesota?  Are they all this fucking dumb?  Their politicians reflect who's electing them, and they got some beauties for politicians thats for certain....

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

2 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

What is it with people from Minnesota?  Are they all this fucking dumb?  Their politicians reflect who's electing them, and they got some beauties for politicians thats for certain....

 

Haha..you bitch about the politicians from your state constantly...sbyl dopey.😂

Edited April 27, 2023 by Jimmy Snacks

[racer254]

The legislation included 320 pages of spending cuts, like banning student-loan forgiveness and bolstering work requirements on welfare programs like SNAP, intended to bring in $4.5 trillion in savings over the next decade. 

Biden has repeatedly said that he will not negotiate terms to raise the debt ceiling and he would only support a bipartisan and clean increase, without any spending cuts attached.

 

Every member commenting wants spending cuts. but Democrats are against spending cuts.  Can this get any clearer, they come right out and say it.  So why would anyone keep defending them?

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by racer254

[Highmark]

Shut the motherfucker down.   All the blame was pointed at Trump when he wasn't going to sign spending legislation.   Lets see who the media points the blame at this time around.  

[Crnr2Crnr]

Just now, racer254 said:

The legislation included 320 pages of spending cuts, like banning student-loan forgiveness and bolstering work requirements on welfare programs like SNAP, intended to bring in $4.5 trillion in savings over the next decade. 

Biden has repeatedly said that he will not negotiate terms to raise the debt ceiling and he would only support a bipartisan and clean increase, without any spending cuts attached.

 

Every member commenting wants spending cuts. but Democrats are against spending cuts.  So why do you keep defending them?

 

McCarthy said... it's the same spending level as four months ago.  He also said he met with Biden in February and Biden hasn't gotten back to him.  Their proposal does raise the debt limit.  

Stalemate... 

Imo they should lock Congress and the Senate into the Chambers without cameras or their phones and not let them out until they can all agree to do something constructive for the country. 

We can't continue to spend our way out of the hole we're in.

[f7ben]

3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

McCarthy said... it's the same spending level as four months ago.  He also said he met with Biden in February and Biden hasn't gotten back to him.  Their proposal does raise the debt limit.  

Stalemate... 

Imo they should lock Congress and the Senate into the Chambers without cameras or their phones and not let them out until they can all agree to do something constructive for the country. 

We can't continue to spend our way out of the hole we're in.

The last thing we want is these ignorant pieces of shut agreeing on anything. 

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

McCarthy said... it's the same spending level as four months ago.  He also said he met with Biden in February and Biden hasn't gotten back to him.  Their proposal does raise the debt limit.  

Stalemate... 

Imo they should lock Congress and the Senate into the Chambers without cameras or their phones and not let them out until they can all agree to do something constructive for the country. 

We can't continue to spend our way out of the hole we're in.

And which party is saying they DON'T WANT SPENDING CUTS?

Also, answer highmark.

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Shut the motherfucker down.   All the blame was pointed at Trump when he wasn't going to sign spending legislation.   Lets see who the media points the blame at this time around.  

 

[Mainecat]

Why tie the debt ceiling vote with something that has nothing to do with it?

The budget gets addressed on its own.

The retarded republicans should have just asked for kittens for every American.

Fuckin dumb asses.

[Crnr2Crnr]

1 hour ago, racer254 said:

And which party is saying they DON'T WANT SPENDING CUTS?

Also, answer highmark.

 

Lighten up Francis... I posted what McCarthy said.   Then I proposed a solution.  If you believe that any of the fucks in DC actually care about your desires, wants or needs, you have another thing coming.  in the eleventh hour there will be some magical negotiation and both parties who actually don't give two shits about Racer or Crnr will figure out how to fuck us all over, retain their power, blame the other side and not accomplish a f'ng thing on matters of our economical standing. 

history has proven me right on every debt ceiling battle in the last couple decades, and they raise it every fucking time.

so does it matter what's in it, because if there was something other than political theater in it we'd all be debating it or complaining about it.

[racer254]

7 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

Lighten up Francis... I posted what McCarthy said.   Then I proposed a solution.  If you believe that any of the fucks in DC actually care about your desires, wants or needs, you have another thing coming.  in the eleventh hour there will be some magical negotiation and both parties who actually don't give two shits about Racer or Crnr will figure out how to fuck us all over, retain their power, blame the other side and not accomplish a f'ng thing on matters of our economical standing. 

history has proven me right on every debt ceiling battle in the last couple decades, and they raise it every fucking time.

so does it matter what's in it, because if there was something other than political theater in it we'd all be debating it or complaining about it.

I agree with you on this.  What I am saying is that it is constantly political party theater now.  In this particular situation, democrats are saying they will not agree to spending cuts.  This is the current stance that party is taking.

[Crnr2Crnr]

11 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I agree with you on this.  What I am saying is that it is constantly political party theater now.  In this particular situation, democrats are saying they will not agree to spending cuts.  This is the current stance that party is taking.

I know... on all counts.  

Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?

 

Barry Goldwater

[Deephaven]

27 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I agree with you on this.  What I am saying is that it is constantly political party theater now.  In this particular situation, democrats are saying they will not agree to spending cuts.  This is the current stance that party is taking.

Exactly why Trump is a terrible choice for the repugs.  Both sides will never come together on anything if he is in charge.

[Crnr2Crnr]

3 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Exactly why Trump is a terrible choice for the repugs.  Both sides will never come together on anything if he is in charge.

same applies to Biden atm 

if the R's flex and negotiate they'll appear weak and impotent to their base 

like I said... stalemate for now 

 

[racer254]

18 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Exactly why Trump is a terrible choice for the repugs.  Both sides will never come together on anything if he is in charge.

The only reason they come together is when the R's cave to the demands of the democrats.  They could come together right now with this bill, but again DEMS don't want the spending cuts.  What you don't understand is that the current voters who want someone like trump want that because they don't want them to cave.  It doesn't have to be trump, but the spending cuts need to happen and the constituents that voted for him or will vote for people like trump also want their electors to take a hard stand.  Don't you want spending cuts?

Edited April 27, 2023 by racer254

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, Deephaven said:

Exactly why Trump is a terrible choice for the repugs.  Both sides will never come together on anything if he is in charge.

Agreement is what has led to a $31 trillion deficit.   Not sure that is what we want anymore. 

You can't possibly think they would treat DeSantis any different than Trump?

Edited April 27, 2023 by Highmark

[Crnr2Crnr]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Agreement is what has led to a $31 trillion deficit.   Not sure that is what we want anymore. 

not doing the work required or paying as we go for a couple decades hasn't helped matters. 

GDP was up 1.1% for Q1 this morning... wonder what percentage our debt increased ?

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Agreement is what has led to a $31 trillion deficit.   Not sure that is what we want anymore. 

You can't possibly think they would treat DeSantis any different than Trump?

Yep,

Biden has flat out said that he didn't want spending cuts.  I mean, how hard is that to understand?  Everyone on this forum agrees that we need spending cuts, but because the R's are introducing it, some here now are against it.  WTF.

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

not doing the work required or paying as we go for a couple decades hasn't helped matters. 

GDP was up 1.1% for Q1 this morning... wonder what percentage our debt increased ?

Point is when each side gets what they want spending is far too high.   We absolutely need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 

https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-cramer-colleagues-introduce-constitutional-balanced-budget-amendment#:~:text=The joint resolution would amend,of the Gross Domestic Product

[Crnr2Crnr]

3 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Yep,

Biden has flat out said that he didn't want spending cuts.  I mean, how hard is that to understand?  Everyone on this forum agrees that we need spending cuts, but because the R's are introducing it, some here now are against it.  WTF.

maybe we should be electing CPA's, Actuaries and Mathematicians instead of Lawyers, Reality TV stars and career politicians? 

what we have is a math problem and... 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

7 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Yep,

Biden has flat out said that he didn't want spending cuts.  I mean, how hard is that to understand?  Everyone on this forum agrees that we need spending cuts, but because the R's are introducing it, some here now are against it.  WTF.

Huh….

The first version of the debt limit bill that Republicans introduced would have removed tax credits for ethanol and other biofuels in the Democrats’ climate bill. 

But in a late-night Rules Committee agreement, GOP leaders dropped those provisions under pressure from Midwestern lawmakers.

That move won the support of Iowa’s four-member delegation, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn and Randy Feenstra, all of whom are Republicans.

“Since this proposal was unveiled, our delegation has stood united for Iowa’s farmers and producers fighting to amend the bill to protect biofuels tax credits,” the Iowa Republicans said. “Having successfully amended the bill to protect funding for these tax credits, our delegation will vote for this legislation, which is a starting point to avoid a default and cut wasteful spending.”

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Point is when each side gets what they want spending is far too high.   We absolutely need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 

https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-cramer-colleagues-introduce-constitutional-balanced-budget-amendment#:~:text=The joint resolution would amend,of the Gross Domestic Product

you won't hear disagreement from thee...

[racer254]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Huh….

The first version of the debt limit bill that Republicans introduced would have removed tax credits for ethanol and other biofuels in the Democrats’ climate bill. 

But in a late-night Rules Committee agreement, GOP leaders dropped those provisions under pressure from Midwestern lawmakers.

That move won the support of Iowa’s four-member delegation, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn and Randy Feenstra, all of whom are Republicans.

“Since this proposal was unveiled, our delegation has stood united for Iowa’s farmers and producers fighting to amend the bill to protect biofuels tax credits,” the Iowa Republicans said. “Having successfully amended the bill to protect funding for these tax credits, our delegation will vote for this legislation, which is a starting point to avoid a default and cut wasteful spending.”

 

Ok, so they gave the concessions that Democrats and Iowa politicians wanted.  What's the problem now?  It should pass then, right?

[racer254]

Even Manchin knows that the democrats are out of control.

Manchin argued that the Biden administration is “determined to pursue an ideological agenda rather than confront the clear and present danger that debts and deficits pose to our nation.”

"Specifically, they are ignoring the law’s intent to support and expand fossil energy and are redefining 'domestic energy' to increase clean-energy spending to potentially deficit-breaking levels," he added. "The administration is attempting at every turn to implement the bill it wanted, not the bill Congress actually passed."

“I believe the only person who can rein in this extremism is Mr. Biden,” Manchin wrote, while calling on Biden to sit down with “fiscally minded Republicans and Democrats to negotiate common-sense reforms to out-of-control fiscal policy.”

[Jimmy Snacks]

2 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Ok, so they gave the concessions that Democrats and Iowa politicians wanted.  What's the problem now?  It should pass then, right?

That move won the support of Iowa’s four-member delegation, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn and Randy Feenstra, all of whom are Republicans.
 

See…it’s not just Democrats.

[racer254]

Just now, Jimmy Snacks said:

That move won the support of Iowa’s four-member delegation, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn and Randy Feenstra, all of whom are Republicans.
 

See…it’s not just Democrats.

Oh so it's all 4 republicans from IOWA that are causing the spending problem now? 

Get a grip dude.  Senate Democrats and the POTUS won't sign the bill if there are spending cuts.  How many times do they have to say that to you before you understand that.