White House: No point in discussing Natl Debt with Republicans

[Little-Acorn]

I'm so glad we elected a President who was going to change the tone of negotiations in Washington, and get rid of the partisan bickering, aren't you?

:lol:

Krauthammer was right. Here comes the train wreck.

--------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-usa-debt-whitehouse-idUSTRE75T4T920110630

White House snubs McConnell invitation to Obama

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:51pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House effectively turned down an invitation by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for President Barack Obama to visit his members on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss raising the debt limit.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, while not directly saying the invitation had been rejected, said Obama did not need to hear Republicans tell him what they would not support.

That, Carney said, was "not a conversation worth having."

[Gaffer]

Besides the golf course is calling to him. He has a 10 am T-off time. Following that he needs to get ready for his vacation, he hasn't had one two weeks.

[Little-Acorn]

How long will the leftist fanatics keep pretending they don't know why so many Republicans were elected in 2010, and so many leftists thrown out?

:rolleyes:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[red states rule]

Obama is worried he would end up like Mark Shields did when he was hit with a straight question he could not spin

Dems will have to face the voters and defend their record.

And they are scared

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/103313" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[darin]

We have to PASS a budget before we can know what is IN the budget...don't you 'free thinkers' get that?

;)

[red states rule]

We have to PASS a budget before we can know what is IN the budget...don't you 'free thinkers' get that?

;)

Hell DMP, they are only 2 years late with presenting a budget. They have more important things too do

Attending fundraisers

Holding press conferences where they blame Republicans and the Tea Party for the state of the economy

Going on talk shows and trying to pass the buck on the economy and the deficit

Tryng to pass another "stimulus", an amnesty bill for illegals, and more "jobs" bills to try and salvage the Obama economy

Now in the real world, would any of us still have a job if we were TWO YEARS late doing our most basic job function?

[red states rule]

BTW, this is what the Republicans are up against with the liberal media and their open support for Obama.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/103328" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now remember this - the Bush tax cuts would only generate $390 BILLION (assuming there would be no adverse impact on the economy) so that leaves and the annual Obama deficit at $1.1 TRILLION

and taxes would go up for ALL income earners - so there goes Obama's promise not to raise taxes on those making less then $25,000/yr

I know, I am nit picking again

[red states rule]

and the NY Times weighs in with this op-ed. I did not think a Balanced Budget amendment was "folly"

But then again, I am not a huge tax and spend liberal like the folks at the NY Times




More Folly in the Debt Limit Talks

Congressional Republicans have opened a new front in the deficit wars. In addition to demanding trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt limit, they are now vowing not to act without first holding votes in each chamber on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The ploy is more posturing on an issue that has already seen too much grandstanding. But it is posturing with a dangerous purpose: to further distort the terms of the budget fight, and in the process, to entrench the Republicans’ no-new-taxes-ever stance.

It won’t be enough for Democrats to merely defeat the amendment when it comes up for a vote. If there is to be any sensible deal to raise the debt limit, they also need to rebut the amendment’s false and dangerous premises — not an easy task given the idea’s populist appeal.

What could be more prudent than balancing the books every year? In fact, forcibly balancing the federal budget each year would be like telling families they cannot take out a mortgage or a car loan, or do any other borrowing, no matter how sensible the purchase or how creditworthy they may be.

Worse, the balanced budget amendment that Republicans put on the table is far more extreme than just requiring the government to spend no more than it takes in each year in taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05tue1.html

[red states rule]

More objective journalism here as the liberal Bob Schieffer expresses his opinion in the form of "questions"

There is not a spending problem here guys - we have a revenue problem and the "poor" will suffer the most


<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/103420" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

Thanks to Al Gores amazing internet, we can see what liberals were saying when Pres Bush raised the debt limit

It is very different then what they are saying now





MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell have been telling viewers in recent days that Republicans considering blocking an increase in the debt ceiling could be creating a financial crisis.

Seven years ago after George W. Bush was re-elected and the debt ceiling had been raised in November 2004, the perilously liberal couple felt Republicans should be "embarrassed" for having done so (transcripts follow with commentary):

ANDREA MITCHELL: But what is looking over his shoulder is history. He wants a legacy. He wants to be able to do something about Social Security. He knows he's got to do something about deficit reduction. That is the big embarrassment for Republicans. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, what the Hill Republicans have done. They've been worse than Democrats.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: They just increased the debt ceiling.

MITCHELL: Exactly.

This exchange occurred on the November 21, 2004, installment of "The Chris Matthews Show."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/07/chris-matthews-and-andrea-mitchell-thought-raising-debt-ceiling-big-e#ixzz1RV4SEZTH

[DragonStryk72]

In response to the NYT op-ed piece:


Under the proposed amendments, the spending cap would apply even if the government collected enough in taxes to spend above the limit, unless two-thirds of lawmakers voted to raise the cap. More likely, antitax lawmakers would vote to disburse the money via tax cuts.

Wait, so they wouldn't be able to tax us nearly as readily, wouldn't be able to spend more than they take in, and we might get a bunch of tax cuts? OMG, what horror!:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

How long will the leftist fanatics keep pretending they don't know why so many Republicans were elected in 2010, and so many leftists thrown out?

:rolleyes:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

True enough; which, should also be a warning to Republicans. The GOP's "Contract with America" swiftly turned into business as usual and a gutless Congress that winced and wimpered every time Pelosi or Reid wagged an accusing finger.

[logroller]

We have to PASS a budget before we can know what is IN the budget...don't you 'free thinkers' get that?

;)


:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I get it; like taking a bet you have no idea what the conditions and stakes are. ---Uh, NO! It'd be more laughable if it weren't reality.

This will backfire on dems, I know it. Dems will lose a quorum busting majority come 2012. Even if, perhaps especially if, Obamacare musters Judicial affirmation, the voters will be overtly motivated to see the system will repair itself, so long as We stay the course. History repeats itself right? Carter's idealism brought us into a period of great freedom and togetherness, then economic prosperity.:salute:

[Little-Acorn]

True enough; which, should also be a warning to Republicans. The GOP's "Contract with America" swiftly turned into business as usual and a gutless Congress that winced and wimpered every time Pelosi or Reid wagged an accusing finger.

You got that right. Hardly a day goes by that I don't repeat that Republicans in Congress are still very much on probation. Their wild-spending ways on 2001-2009 haven't been forgotten; and were in fact the reason so many of them got booted out in 2006 and 2008, and majorities got handed over to the Democrats.

Now, I'm VERY pleased with how John Boehner and the others are holding the line against the Obamanites and sticking to their "No tax increases, PERIOD" statements.

But they'd damned well better KEEP sticking to them. If they talk like this for a year, and then say, "Well, OK, we'll let in a few little increases or close a few little loopholes"... then the whole thing has been for nought, and they'll deserve to get kicked out in 2012 just as fast as Democrats were in 2010.

Perhaps they need to point out to Obama (and, more importantly, to themselves) that today's debate isn't about "Tax Rate Increases" vs. "No Tax Rate Increases". It's "Tax Rate Increases" vs. "Tax rate CUTS". And by insisting today on "No tax increases", they are ALREADY compromising with their buddies across the aisle.

And that NO MORE COMPROMISES can be done.

NONE.

And that Democrats should be happy with getting just "No Tax Rate Increases".

[red states rule]

Got this in an email at work and it pretty well sums up Obama's view on government spending

The Whitehouse is biting the bullet - cutting expenses.

Please consider the numbers:

The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same
thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of my
total Budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2000a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by… six cents. Yes, I'm
going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.

(Did the president actually think no one would do the math? Please send
this to everyone on your list so people understand what a load of crap this is ---as if they didn't already know)

John Q. Taxpayer