PDA

View Full Version : Demokrooks in the US house demand budget deficits!



LWW
11-24-2011, 06:08 AM
The recent balanced budget amendment vote went as follow:

R's 236-4 (98.3%) in favor of it.

D's 161-25 (86.6%) against it.

Soflasnapper
11-24-2011, 10:30 AM
The BBA is a horribly crafted bit of nonsense that would have prevented Reagan's arms buildup, or our victory in WW II. It would be a suicide pact.

Now, when something SENSIBLE was proposed to help reduce the deficit, the Clinton '93 budget bill, what was the party line vote on that one? 100% GOP against, as we can all easily recall. Not quite, but almost, 100% Democratic side in favor.

LWW
11-24-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BBA is a horribly crafted bit of nonsense that would have prevented Reagan's arms buildup, or our victory in WW II. It would be a suicide pact.

Now, when something SENSIBLE was proposed to help reduce the deficit, the Clinton '93 budget bill, what was the party line vote on that one? 100% GOP against, as we can all easily recall. Not quite, but almost, 100% Democratic side in favor.

</div></div>

That, again, is a lie.

Clinton fought tooth and nail against deficit reduction strategy ... and has been taking credit for them, once they worked, ever since.

Now ... bow down and worship your prior godking.

Soflasnapper
11-24-2011, 05:35 PM
Right. Clinton opposed his own campaign proposal to raise the top tax rate?

Put down the egg nog, you've had enough! Or explain how that all happened, in your alternative universe.

LWW
11-24-2011, 06:45 PM
That wasn't what reduced the deficit.

Reductions in rates of spending increase, growing the economy and reforming welfare are what did.

Soflasnapper
11-25-2011, 11:37 AM
That's partially false (although those did help, raising revenues with the tax hike was critical), but those still do not show any Clinton opposition in play.

For the hard caps on discretionary spending were put in place by the Democratic Congress under the prior president, and continued in place by Clinton with his first two years of Democratic majority Congress as well. Same with pay-go-- dated from the Democratic Congress under Bush the wiser, and continued by the Democratic Congress under Clinton.

As for reforming welfare, that could not have taken any effect until it was passed into law, which didn't happen until 1996, only first applying in 1997. So it cannot have been any part of the deficit reductions that occurred between '93 and '96.

If Clinton had continued to oppose it, as he did with his two prior vetoes, it never would have happened, as the Congress couldn't have over-ridden his veto. IIRC, they did not even try to over-ride the prior two vetoes.

cushioncrawler
11-25-2011, 03:19 PM
The Constitution needs updating.
I notice that it duznt protekt a citizens right to queue.
Queueing will bekum the No1 past-time for most citizens.

What rules will apply??

Kan Congress tax queues???
What if a queue crosses a State border????
Kan injuns queue too????
mac.