Phil Gingrey swings to the ‘yes’ column on Boehner plan
A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, who has been a staunch opponent of the debt-ceiling proposal pitched by House Speaker John Boehner, just confirmed that the Marietta Republican has switched to the “yes” column – an important get for Boehner that could show itself in a vote later today.
Previously, the Boehner plan required a select House-Senate committee to propose a series of off-setting budget cuts before President Barack Obama could request a second increase in the debt-ceiling next year.
Gingrey was won over by the inclusion this morning of an additional requirement, mandating that Congress also send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Here’s his interview with Jamie Dupree of AM750 and 95.5FM Newstalk/WSB:
For those of you keeping score, that means six House Republicans from Georgia now support the Boehner plan. Two – Tom Graves of Ranger and Paul Broun of Athens – remain in opposition.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
198 comments Add your comment
John
July 30th, 2011
2:54 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
2:09 pm
Perhaps you could start by getting educated yourself. Do you honestly believe people are homeless because they choose to be? How many people (including educated people) have lost their jobs over the last few years? Is it because they chose to loose their jobs? I guess you also believe everyone who lost their homes due to foreclosure also chose that as well.
Another piece of education…people don’t choose to become alcoholics or drug addicts. Disease just like heart disease or cancer, etc. Or do you believe people choose to have heart disease and cancer as well.
td
July 30th, 2011
2:55 pm
deegee
July 30th, 2011
2:43 pm
My friend the tea party people are what use to be the silent majority. The vast majority of them have never been involved in politics. They are the hard working suburban moms and dads that see their children not being able to have a better life then they have because the government is spending their future.
Ghost Rider
July 30th, 2011
3:00 pm
Breathes there a liberal with an IQ higher than room temperature?
John
July 30th, 2011
3:06 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
2:18 pm
“Socialism takes away the incentive for people to go out and work hard. It gives people an entitlement mentality that is counterproductive to giving a person a great work ethic.
Unemployment insurance is a socialist program. So tell me, where is the incentive for someone making a 6 figure income to not look for work and live off unemployment when there revenue drops to $300 or less a week?
You have a very simplistic view of things…not always that simple.
John
July 30th, 2011
3:15 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
2:55 pm
“My friend the tea party people are what use to be the silent majority. The vast majority of them have never been involved in politics.”
That’s part of the problem…they’re uneducated. They don’t understand compromise, especially when we have split government. When we have people like Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin and others saying failing to raise the debt ceiling is not big deal, that the Democrats are just trying to use scare tactics at the same time disregarding the words of economists (on both the left and right), Wall Street and businesses that are all saying we must raise the debt ceiling.
Smoke
July 30th, 2011
3:16 pm
GOP fiscal responsibility. Fighting to keep fund a fighter jet that has no useful purpose because it will retain jobs. But, then tell you that government does not create jobs. Does that mean that Government can only retain jobs, therefore that is being fiscally responsible?
td
July 30th, 2011
3:41 pm
John
July 30th, 2011
3:06 pm
How is insurance a socialistic program? How do you figure? Is not UI and set amount for a finite period of time? Short term safety net? This is not socialism but compassionate conservatism.
I have not seen to many 6 figure income people get laid off and not get back into the work force within 6 months. They may have had to take jobs at even half their pay and below their skill set but they have a work ethic because they have not wanted and depended on entitlements all their life.
How is life not simple? One has to eat, sleep and breath. A person has to find a way to gather the resources necessary to accomplish these tasks. We in this country are given the opportunity to get a education and it is up to the individual to either get it or not. Everyone is told from early in life that if you do not get an education then your chances of being very successful in life is slim. The individual has a simple choice to make and one should be ready to live with the consequences of this decision. How many times has every individual been told of the negative consequences of doing drugs or drinking? You are then presented with a choice to either do them or not. Everyone should have the common sense to know that if you can not take care of yourself then you do not practice activities that will cause you to have to take care of another person. Anyone that is smart enough to get a job and have the income and credit to purchase a house should know that you buy what you can afford. Everyone should know that the economy can turn and could lose a job and you better make arrangements just in case.
Yes, sometimes one gets curve balls thrown there way but if you plan then you should be able to overcome in the long run as long as you have taken all the basic steps to prepare your self.
Are you saying know that it is the governments responsibility to take care of people long term that do not plan for bad times? I think it was horrible for the government to bailout all those companies that did not plan correctly.
td
July 30th, 2011
4:10 pm
John
July 30th, 2011
3:15 pm
Do you agree that we HAVE TO stop the spending and pay off our debt for the future of the nation? When have you ever seen a Democrat willing to really cut a program (besides defence)? If the Dems are not forced to make the necessary cuts then it will never get done. I think what the tea party is doing right now is a very patriotic act. They are not taking the easy political move and just raising the ceiling but taking a potentially dangerous political stand for my children’s future. It is a rarity for politicians to think about anything but the next election so this is not the typical political game. We should all be calling our leaders and telling them we are in favor of the Tea parties stand and want them to take the same stand for our children’s future. To do otherwise means you are a selfish individual and are only thinking of yourself.
yuzeyurbrane
July 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
td, read Article VIII of the Ryan bill as posted on his own website. It is carefully tucked away but provides for draconian across the board cuts in govt. programs, including present recipients of Medicare and SS, if a convulated formula of debt not exceeding certain percents of GDP is not met. These measures are so extreme that they are likely to be triggered and yes even people like me who are over 65 would have their benefits reduced. I am not saying that you are not repeating this over 55 talking point in good faith, but it says something about the koolaid Ryan and his buds are dispensing.
Edward
July 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
RGB & td: OK, where are all the jobs that these “job creators” with the tax breaks are creating? You people keep defending the massive tax breaks (yes, they are massive no matter how much you try to explain them away, don’t piss on my leg and try to tell me it is rain) but THERE ARE NO RESULTS that the tax breaks are doing what the GOP claims they are for doing. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS???? SHOW ME THE RESULTS!!!!!
You can’t, because the money goes into the pockets while the corporations continue holding their hands out for government money. Pathetic and hypocritical, all of you.
Edward
July 30th, 2011
4:37 pm
I think I will set up camp in td’s yard, he’s such a kind-hearted christian, surely he won’t mind me and a couple hundred others living there.
td
July 30th, 2011
4:59 pm
Edward
July 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
Let us use a little Obama logic on you so that you may understand. If it was not for the tax cuts then the unemployment rate would be 16%. That means the tax cuts are working to create jobs.
td
July 30th, 2011
5:05 pm
Edward
July 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
Everytime I drive down the street I see help wanted signs, I read article after artcle in this paper talking about all the workers that are needed in South Georgia. I bet the help wanted ads in this paper have jobs.
If you do not like any of the jobs then why not start your own business? I am sure you have a marketable skill set don’t you?
td
July 30th, 2011
5:09 pm
Edward
July 30th, 2011
4:37 pm
I think I will set up camp in td’s yard, he’s such a kind-hearted christian, surely he won’t mind me and a couple hundred others living there.
How is it Christian to have the government take care of you? How is it Christian to have the government give you an entitlement mentality? How is it Christian to have the government strip you of your work ethic?
John
July 30th, 2011
5:13 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
3:41 pm
“How is insurance a socialistic program? How do you figure? Is not UI and set amount for a finite period of time? Short term safety net? This is not socialism but compassionate conservatism. ”
TD, please educate us on the definition of social programs and compassionate conservatism. Are you trying to say any program that has a finite period of time is not a social program? Every program, including medicare, medicaid and social security has a finite period of time…some that period ends at death but it’s still a finite period of time. We don’t keep checks going out indefinitely after someone dies.
“I have not seen to many 6 figure income people get laid off and not get back into the work force within 6 months. They may have had to take jobs at even half their pay and below their skill set but they have a work ethic because they have not wanted and depended on entitlements all their life. ”
I know several personally. Just watch the news and you will see people who have been out of work for over a year…the 99ers. Many companies that have jobs are posting “unemployed need not apply”. And you want to believe people are out of work because the want to live off the government. Wake up, get out from under that rock, whatever and see what’s going on out there.
“We in this country are given the opportunity to get a education and it is up to the individual to either get it or not.”
Really? Can you name any college that is free for anyone who wants to attend?
td
July 30th, 2011
5:23 pm
John
July 30th, 2011
5:13 pm
Really? Can you name any college that is free for anyone who wants to attend?
Excuse me K-12 education for free. But while you are thinking about it, those people that apply themselves and excel with there free education can almost always pick any college they want to attend for free. I have one niece that just received her degree from Cornell for free and another niece that will complete her degree from Georgia Tech this year not only for free tuition but they are giving her spending money for her to go to their University. I also think the HOPE pays for you to go free to college if you took advantage of your HS business.
John
July 30th, 2011
5:24 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
4:10 pm
“Do you agree that we HAVE TO stop the spending and pay off our debt for the future of the nation? ”
While I agree just as Democrats do that we need to cut spending, do you not agree that we also need to increase revenue? Can you name a single company that is run by believing all that’s needed is spending cuts and there’s no need to look at increasing revenue? What about individuals? Have you never left a job for another one with better pay? The Bush tax cuts added $1.6 trillion to the deficit and somehow you want to believe we only have a spending problem.
As far as your believe that the tea party is doing the right thing…do you realize the mess that could leave us in with the amendment they want to pass? If we had already had it, there would have been no help for 9/11, Katrina victims, aid to flooded areas, ect. If we don’t have the money, cities and states could be told “tough, we can’t help you”. Bush would not have been allowed to go after Bin Laden and then take us into war in Iraq since we all know the wars are on the credit card and not paid for.
td
July 30th, 2011
5:52 pm
John
July 30th, 2011
5:24 pm
“While I agree just as Democrats do that we need to cut spending”
I have been hearing this for twenty years and have yet to see one actual cut (besides defense spending) that a democrat has ever voted for. Please show me if I am wrong? I know several times that the Republicans have put several major cuts in bills and every time the Dems have voted them down.
Did you happen to read RBG’s post earlier telling about the Dem. myth of increasing the Obama tax cuts (yes since Obama signed a bill to extend them they are now his tax cuts)? It will only increase the revenue by $81 billion per year and we are borrowing $4 billion per day. Also, on that topic, why should the top 1% taxes be raised from 35% back up to 39.5% when 48% of households pay 0% in income taxes? Since you are all about fairness, where is this fair?
The balanced budget Amendment allows for emergencies and if I am not mistaken wars are not even counted in the amendments. Another left wing myth.
td
July 30th, 2011
6:04 pm
John
July 30th, 2011
5:24 pm
“Can you name a single company that is run by believing all that’s needed is spending cuts and there’s no need to look at increasing revenue?”
Since when has the government become a business. A business is in business to make a profit are you telling me know that the government is trying to make a profit?
“What about individuals? Have you never left a job for another one with better pay?”
How much of the GDP of our nation should the government have? They are getting into my pay everyday. Why do they need 22 to 25 cents out of every dollar produced? Do we really need that many services? When I am short on money the first thing I cut is my discretionary spending. I cut back to basic cable, turn off the texting on my phone, do not go out to eat, postpone vacations or try to sell something.
If the government wants to increase its revenue then why do they not open up more lands for grazing, oil exploration, mining? Allow the opening of more refineries where they can increase the tax revenue. What is wrong with these measures? Now I may make my conservative friend mad here but I would charge other countries for having our bases in them and for protecting them.
double
July 30th, 2011
6:44 pm
Goes to show youTD. All time I thought was fish heads and rice.TD if all were started under same ideal conditions,same enviroment then your greedy apprasials could have some merit.You only show your low mentality,jealous non christian ways when you make those foolish statements. A child raised exposed to all the elements you refere to so much,have nothing near the opportunities as a child in a good christain home with both parents.
clem
July 30th, 2011
6:59 pm
stop with the bs on 39.6 tax rate…you got your clock cleaned several weeks ago, no need to rehash but per : http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data
td
July 30th, 2011
8:24 pm
clem
July 30th, 2011
6:59 pm
First off the current rate is 35% and the rate the Dems wants to make it is 39.5%.
“you got your clock cleaned several weeks ago,”
You my friend like to re write history. I found and posted the link to prove the point the bottom 50% of tax payers pay hardly any actual taxes. Yes, per the figures the average amount the top 1% pays after deductions is 23.27% but the tax rate is 35%.
Some other interesting figures for you:
The top 1% pays 38.02% of all taxes paid. The top 5% actually pays 58.72% of all the taxes paid.
The top 1% is 1,399,606 households, the top 5% is 5,598,423 while the bottom 50% is 69,980,290 households. So in other words 6 million people are picking up the bill for 70 million people. Remember the 70 million households represent people that actually worked and filed taxes. Then you have to add in the leaches of society to really see how much of the tab so few have to provide for.
td
July 30th, 2011
8:41 pm
double
July 30th, 2011
6:44 pm
“were started under same ideal conditions,same enviroment then your greedy apprasials could have some merit”
My wife came to this country when she was 14. She could not speak a word of English and had not went to school since she was in the second grade. She had a mother and 6 other siblings and they lived in sub standard housing provided by their sponsor church and received Food stamps. Does this sound like “ideal conditions”? She worked in the fields during the summers picking berries and in a Chinese restaurant on the weekend during the school year. She finished HS, received a college degree and now has a very good job making pretty good money. She has one sister that is a computer programmer, one that is a pharmacist, one brother a manager of an local insurance company and another a VP of a major corporation. How did they accomplish all of this since they had all these barriers put in their way?
I have five people that work for me that came from poverty, went to college and have a great work ethic. I actually look for these type people to hire because they work the hard and do not think they are entitled to anything but an opportunity.
You dems and your socialistic entitlement mentality is the real problem in this country. You tell people that they were not born with a silver spoon so they do not have a shot in live except to depend on the government for handouts. It is not the rich people that keep you down it is your own attitudes and beliefs.
double
July 30th, 2011
10:35 pm
Td this is more of you bull$$hit and spin which you are good doing.Some will do good others will fail.Only an idiot would think all is equal,all will be responsible.I wish it was an ideal world.It’s not.and with all your imagination you can’t make it so.I do not doubt your wife is intelligent and a hard worker,someone had to help your ignorant a$$ up the ladder.
td
July 30th, 2011
11:09 pm
double
July 30th, 2011
10:35 pm
Typical liberal tactic. When you can not defend your philosophy you resort to calling names. I guess you are one of those that have not taken advantage of the opportunities this country has given you and it is all someones else’s fault and not your own. It is never to late to start but you my friend are going to have to so some soul searching first if you really want make it.
John
July 30th, 2011
11:24 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
5:52 pm
Look it up…Clinton cut spending. He left us with a balanced budget and projected surplus. Bush came in with a Republican led Congress and cut taxes, brought us in wars on the credit card, squandered the surplus leaving us with a deficit.
Problem is not a single Republican wants to raise revenue in any way…whether is cutting out loopholes for the wealthy, cutting subsidies to the most profitable corporations in the history of the world (which by the way is spending) or going up on rates.
John
July 30th, 2011
11:38 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
5:52 pm
“The balanced budget Amendment allows for emergencies and if I am not mistaken wars are not even counted in the amendments. Another left wing myth.”
No myth…where is the text does it contain emergencies or war, here is the text…
“SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.
(a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.
(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.”
John
July 30th, 2011
11:44 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
6:04 pm
“When I am short on money the first thing I cut is my discretionary spending. I cut back to basic cable, turn off the texting on my phone, do not go out to eat, postpone vacations or try to sell something.”
And when you do that and still cannot afford your mortgage/rent, electricity, food…what do you do? Don’t you look at trying to increase your revenue by looking for a higher paying job or a second job? Possibly sell some items?
John
July 30th, 2011
11:58 pm
td
July 30th, 2011
8:41 pm
“You dems and your socialistic entitlement mentality is the real problem in this country. ”
You keep digging yourself further in the hole. You talk about socialistic entitlement programs and just before you wrote the above sentence you talk about your wife’s mother, siblings and herself immigrated to this country and received food stamps…ie. socialistic entitlement program. You wife’s family benefited from the very same socialistic entitlement programs you claim to be so evil and want to cut.
double
July 31st, 2011
12:06 am
TD now you are a motivational speaker.No you are very hard headed,and I do not call you names except where I think they fit.In my opinion it is(you insert approprate word) to think ,and state all hardships are self caused.I do think most immigrants appreciate the opportunities this country has to offer and take advantage of them.But they can have bad luck,and lost opportunities same as others.Lms says I live in a trailer.regardless I know life is unfair and we are not all given the same hand.If your wife’s family has done as well as you say,then I can see what encouraged you to be successful. Behind every successful man You know what I;m saying.
clem
July 31st, 2011
7:44 am
td, you should be proud of your wife and inlaws….but are you saying they should have paid income taxes in their early american days when they were making low incomes? would you have considered them part of the unwashed 50%? the only aid they received was from church?
unfortunately, i think there is still an entitlement mentality in part of the american society due to our country’s horrid history on slavery…but not being of that ethnic group i find it hard to be too harsh in my judgement…for i have not walker in their shoes….and many of them have succeeded but they likely face bigger obstacles then you and i….i should probably hush because i know i don’t know enough about this issue or a remedy but wish it were not so.
last thing, society my guess is much like a bell curve, not everyone can attain the far right end….whether thru genetics, upbringings, or other factors is it just that so few have so much while others have so little, and so many fight so hard to enjoy a decent standard of living for their families? i guess deep down this progressive wishes it weren’t such a dog eat dog world, but i need to take that up with the creator.
td
July 31st, 2011
9:42 am
John
July 30th, 2011
11:58 pm
“You keep digging yourself further in the hole.”
Where am I digging. First off: I have said numerous times that it should be first the church to help the poor and then the states responsibility to set up a SHORT TERM safety net. Newt and the Contract with America passed and Clinton signed Welfare reform in 1995. Part of the reform was to turn AFDC from an entitlement program that a person could receive forever to TANF and TEMPORARY program (I think Georgia had a 5 year lifetime limit) designed to help people get back on their feet. This is a program I can support. Food Stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and all other social welfare programs should be re designed in a similar manner.
td
July 31st, 2011
10:00 am
clem
July 31st, 2011
7:44 am
“but are you saying they should have paid income taxes in their early american days when they were making low incomes?”
Yes, they should have paid something even if it was just 1%. Everyone must have some skin in the game. To truly have a progressive tax system then everyone has to pay. The less you make the less you pay but we can not say that we have 70 million people pay 0% and continue to say we have a fair tax system.
“would you have considered them part of the unwashed 50%”
The 50% that pay no taxes are not the “unwashed” because they actually work. The “unwashed” are the ones that refuse to work that the rest of us have to support.
“the only aid they received was from church?”
The church sponsored them so they should have been able to support them. If they could not totally done it then the state should have had a short term temp program to help them get on their feet.
“and so many fight so hard to enjoy a decent standard of living for their families?”
And those families should be helped by churches and states to win the fight and think for the most part they are. The people with a true work ethic make it in this society. It is the ones that are lazy, have an entitlement mentality and want everything given to them that do not make it and I do not fill as though we should support that way of life.
deegee
July 31st, 2011
10:08 am
Wow, immigrants on food stamps. Doesn’t that just chap the hide of our tea party patriots. Just curious, how did they come here legally, work legally and stay here?
td
July 31st, 2011
10:26 am
double
July 31st, 2011
12:06 am
” to think ,and state all hardships are self caused”
No hardships are part of life. Getting laid off from a job, getting sick and going through a bad luck streak are just part of life and everyone has these times. Not being prepared for such hardships and not having the right attitude is the fault of the individual. Not expecting excellence from yourself is the fault of the individual.
td
July 31st, 2011
10:33 am
deegee
July 31st, 2011
10:08 am
Wow, immigrants on food stamps. Doesn’t that just chap the hide of our tea party patriots. Just curious, how did they come here legally, work legally and stay here?
Where have you ever seen a Republican or Tea party say anything negative about LEGAL immigration?
They were refugees from a war torn area of Asia. Legal immigrants and now all of them are producing citizens that are in that top 25% of wage earners. BTW: They are more anti illegal immigration and more hard core conservative than I am. They can not believe that in this great country that we actually have native born people that are to lazy to take advantage of all the opportunities that this country gives.
td
July 31st, 2011
10:42 am
John
July 30th, 2011
11:44 pm
“And when you do that and still cannot afford your mortgage/rent, electricity, food…what do you do? Don’t you look at trying to increase your revenue by looking for a higher paying job or a second job? Possibly sell some items?”
Yes, why are we not opening up more land to increase grazing fees coming in? Why are we not fast tracking oil drilling leases in the gulf of Mexico, in the shale fields on the continental shelf? Why are we not opening up the fields in Alaska? Just take those few steps and look at how many more jobs it would create and how many more taxpayers we would have contributing instead of taking. Yes, I will support you efforts 100% on getting these measures implemented.
Can we get together and get a bipartisan effort going on these points?
deegee
July 31st, 2011
10:49 am
Okay, so they came here as refugees. They received a benefit from the US government just by the nature of their refugee status. The US is famous for meddling in foreign wars, making a mess of the political landscape then having no recourse other than to offer refugee status to tens of thousands of people. El Salvador, Somalia, Bosnia, Viet Nam come to mind. Why do you suppose the US stays out of civil wars in Africa?
I have every bit of respect for your wife and in laws. But for the grace of the US State Department, they are no better than any other human being that comes to the US in search of a better life.
td
July 31st, 2011
11:36 am
deegee
July 31st, 2011
10:49 am
I thought Somalia was in Africa and are we not involved in Lybia now?
“Why do you suppose the US stays out of civil wars in Africa?”
Because there were no communist trying to take over Africa? Since the end of WW2 to Ronald Reagan all the wars the US were involved in were due to a communist faction trying to take over a country in a geopolitical interest of the United States. Besides South Africa and the oil countries in North Africa there are no other parts of the continent that are in our geopolitical interest. We have also not been in a war on the continent of South America for the same reasons.
deegee
July 31st, 2011
12:10 pm
Oh, yes, the commie threat. Recently I purchased a pair of pants that were made in Viet Nam. My brother works in Southeast Asia and took a bike tour of Viet Nam that included exploring the Viet Cong tunnels. Very enterprising, those commies I would say.
Yes, I know that Somalia is in Africa. We high tailed out of there in a hurry. Some of our Somali refugees are now finding their inner Al Qaeda and traveling to Yemen for training. What about the drug war in Colombia? You think we haven’t spent a bundle in arms and influence there?
td, you really need to stop listening to Boortz and start looking objectively at the world.
td
July 31st, 2011
12:58 pm
deegee
July 31st, 2011
12:10 pm
“td, you really need to stop listening to Boortz and start looking objectively at the world”
How do you know my points are the same as Boortz? Do you listen to him everyday? I have probably listened to Boortz 10 times in the last year. I am willing to bet you that I watch and listen to more liberal shows than you do.
clem
July 31st, 2011
6:20 pm
why should we listen to repubs:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?hp
Ghost Rider
July 31st, 2011
8:04 pm
clem:
“why should we listen to repubs:”
Because you should always listen to those more intelligent than yourself?
clem
July 31st, 2011
8:39 pm
the repub party….why let facts get in the way or is it we don’t need no stinkin’ facts….
clem
July 31st, 2011
9:00 pm
and apparently ghost cannot read or comprehend: since 1981 13.3T added to national debt….9.5T for repub prezs (71%) and of the 78 times since 1961 the debt ceiling raised….how many times under Rs…49 times or 63%….granted obama will add considerably more but he inherited economy in very deep recession, two wars unfinished, big business trying to gouge main street even more, a polarized political system….why on earth would anyone want that job and even if they did really how much should we expect with knuckleheads on both sides
td
July 31st, 2011
9:37 pm
clem
July 31st, 2011
9:00 pm
Remember that only Congress can spend money. Presidents can not. How many of those Republican Presidents had a Democratic Congress? I know the Dems controlled the house for 40 something straight years until Newt’s revolution. During Newt’s term the budget was balanced and the debt started to go down (Clinton years).
Reagan always had a Democratic house and was on a mission to win the cold war by out spending the USSSR in an arms race. Guess what he won. The Democratic controlled House under Tip said sure but in return you are going to have to agree on more domestic spending and Reagan gave in because he was on a mission to win the cold war.
The first Bush had a war in Iraq and was duped by the Dems. Remember we gave into them on “No new taxes” with the promise of cutting spending. The Dems never cut the spending and as a result he lost re election.
Clinton was dragged into actually balancing the budget by Newt after Newt shut the government down ( now you Dems want to rewrite history and say he cut spending).
The second Bush gave into Ted Kennedy for goal of Education testing and to make sure our children could read. In return Kennedy wrote the NCLB bill that dramatically expanded the Federal DOE. (I think Bush made a huge mistake here)
The second Bush listened to Kennedy again on is Prescription drug benefit plan. (I do blame Bush for this mess as well).
Least let us not forget that the cost of Obama care has mostly been deferred until after 2012. This bill will totally bust the budget. With the Feds paying 80% Georgia has done a study that said our on states cost is going to be close to $2 billion per year to add all these new adults to the Medicaid roles.
The NY times seems to conveniently forget to talk about the fact that the Dems controlled at least one branch of Congress for every year but two since 1961 and all money spent has to come out of the House.
deegee
July 31st, 2011
9:53 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Those poor republican presidents. They’re always getting duped by the Dems and there’s nothing they can do about it. They can have the presidency and both houses of congress all at the same time and the Democrat agenda is just to tempting to resist. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Clinton raised taxes. No small wonder we had a budget surplus when he left office. Geez.
double
August 1st, 2011
2:30 am
The first Bush started a war in Iraq(research April Glaspie) in order to take attention from failed savings&loan(Neil Bush and Bush family)2nd Bush lied weapons mass destruction(not poison gas) cut taxes during his wars.Passed part D drugs coverage,at what cost?Created more drugs on street.And they were duped by the democrats.Now TD trying to dupe others.Believe Clem sharper then TD.(than)