Republican bill has a requirement for a balanced budget amendment

[O.S.O.K.]

And I think that they should insist on this - period. No compromise.

The over spending has to stop.

Our government has acted like a spoiled trust fund baby for far too long.

[mriddick]

Polls have up to 70% of the American people supporting this idea, you'd think it would pass easily.

[Kadmos]

I like the idea, but does it have an exemption for Republican presidents? Let's face it, it's going to come back to bite them in the ass. Where was this idea under Bush? Odds are it will have no teeth anyway

[O.S.O.K.]

Beats the hell out of just business as usual passing debt ceiling increases every year.

I am sure there's a provision for "times of war", etc. but come on, something has to be done to curb the run away train of spending.

That list that Paul Ryan published of all of the pork programs that could be cut with little pain to hardly anybody was astounding. And it was just the tip of the iceburg.

This is rediculous.

They're operating like Detroit or crying out loud and we all know what happened and is happening to Detroit.

[coppertales]

will never go for it. Pray the Republicans don't cave in on this......chris3

[stinker]

I'm waiting to see the actual text of the ammendment before i say yes or no to it.
Funny how not even one person in the media asks what it actually says word for word aint it?
Not even the dickocrats have asked that.
Makes me wonder....

[Kadmos]

I'm waiting to see the actual text of the ammendment before i say yes or no to it.
Funny how not even one person in the media asks what it actually says word for word aint it?
Not even the dickocrats have asked that.
Makes me wonder....

Yep, I'm betting it has no teeth, probably end up along the lines of a Proclamation supporting puppies and rainbows

[El Jefe]

It will be fascinating watching this play out. Plus I love the idea of forcing Reid or Barry to deep 6 this knowing most Americans like the idea.

And while we're at it, where are the plans and solutions from the Democratic side? :think:

[mriddick]

I have heard there is still some ways to get around the spending cap it would impose although nothing to the degree we are seeing now and it would force accountability on any of that type of spending.

Overall I gather it's pretty effective and you can tell just how effective it might be by how many D's are against it :)

[stinker]

Most of the D's could be starving and they would be against a ham sandwich if they found out an R made it, until they got to the back room away from the cameras. It's all part of the illusion they're not out for the same things in the end.

[O.S.O.K.]

The bill that the house just passed isn't great - very little spending cuts at all - only 9B next year and it raises the debt ceiling 900B.

However, that's the bait - the balanced budget amendment is the real meat.

I don't like this much but it would put a cap on the spending and would force the assholes to be responsible.

[mriddick]

No matter who's plan is adopted you will see very little in the way of cuts right now, all the plans basically do nothing now and offset the cuts so it affects only those under 5o due to worries of upsetting seniors today.

As I like to say welcome to age warfare :)

[JTHunter]

will never go for it. Pray the Republicans don't cave in on this......chris3

DITTO!!! It would be nice NOT to see business as usual!

[LAGC]

You know, balancing the budget wouldn't be all that difficult. It really just comes down to priorities. Republicans don't seem to want to address the obvious: we were running budget SURPLUSES and PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT until two things happened: tax cuts and MASSIVE, BLOATED military spending on the wars, starting in 2001 and again in 2003. It's the Republicans that want to destroy Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, while leaving the military hog and tax cuts alone.

If we do default, the first thing that should be defunded is the wars. Bring all the troops home, THEN we can think about cutting other shit, or raising taxes back to where they were before Bush fucked everything up.

[mriddick]

Then explain why under obama the federal debt has grown $3.7 trillion in 2-1/2 years. Granted under Bush it grew from almost 5 trillion but that was in 8 years, at the pace obama is spending he'll out pace the one you want to blame in less then half the time.

[ltorlo64]

You know, balancing the budget wouldn't be all that difficult. It really just comes down to priorities. Republicans don't seem to want to address the obvious: we were running budget SURPLUSES and PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT until two things happened: tax cuts and MASSIVE, BLOATED military spending on the wars, starting in 2001 and again in 2003. It's the Republicans that want to destroy Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, while leaving the military hog and tax cuts alone.

If we do default, the first thing that should be defunded is the wars. Bring all the troops home, THEN we can think about cutting other shit, or raising taxes back to where they were before Bush fucked everything up.

Don't forget that for at least one of those "wars" we were attacked first. And in the other the country attacked was in blatant violation of multiple (more than 10) UN Resolutions and was shooting at our planes almost every day. Focus on the whole picture not on just what the MSM tells you.

Also, you seem to forget that every plan proposed by the Republicans does nothing to seniors and their current benefits. It does affect those who are younger, say less than 55, not those who are already on it. Of course, you would not know that by just watching the MSM or by listening to Democrats.

[mriddick]

Also, you seem to forget that every plan proposed by the Republicans does nothing to seniors and their current benefits. It does affect those who are younger, say less than 55, not those who are already on it. Of course, you would not know that by just watching the MSM or by listening to Democrats.

Just age warfare in the same way the Dems have been waging class warfare I'm afraid, this part of the fix sickens me. regardless.

[Kadmos]

Don't forget that for at least one of those "wars" we were attacked first.

Really? By who? Were any of the 9/11 hijackers from Afghanistan or Iraq? And where did Osama turn up?

Sorry but LAGC is right, tax cuts that showed no benefit, and massive spending mostly on military really helped put us into a huge mess.

To be fair, that surplus was winding down somewhat, it was a very limitied opportunity.

A limited opportunity that could have completely wiped out our debt, but we totally blew that chance. I really don't get why more people aren't pissed about that. We had a true workable plan that would have wiped out our national debt in just a couple more years.

Sure social security was still going to be problematic, but it's not like we don't have that same problem now.

But our best, easiest, least painful bet was totally blown...and mostly over what should have realistically been two 30 day wars consisting mostly of air strikes.

[O.S.O.K.]

We really blew the opportunity that was handed to us by Ronald Regan. He lead us out of a recession - not by spending but by lowering tax rates. He defeated the Soviet Union and really leff us in the cat's bird seat and what did those following him do with this opportunity?

Quite simply, they squandered it. Surfed the wave and made all kinds of stupid mistakes and decisions that have lead us to this point.

W Bush sucked ass just as bad as Clinton and now, worst of all obummer - who it is quite clear to anyone with a brain, is actively working to plummet our country into economic ruin.

The republicans are the only ones (albeit weakly) who are working towards the right goal here. And the American people can see this.

But it is too little too late I am afraid.

[ltorlo64]

Really? By who? Were any of the 9/11 hijackers from Afghanistan or Iraq? And where did Osama turn up?

Sorry but LAGC is right, tax cuts that showed no benefit, and massive spending mostly on military really helped put us into a huge mess.

To be fair, that surplus was winding down somewhat, it was a very limitied opportunity.

A limited opportunity that could have completely wiped out our debt, but we totally blew that chance. I really don't get why more people aren't pissed about that. We had a true workable plan that would have wiped out our national debt in just a couple more years.

Sure social security was still going to be problematic, but it's not like we don't have that same problem now.

But our best, easiest, least painful bet was totally blown...and mostly over what should have realistically been two 30 day wars consisting mostly of air strikes.

I can't believe I have to answer this. We were attacked by Al Qada, which was operating out of Afganistan with the full knowledge and support of the Taliban. When the Taliban would not give bin Laden up, that is when the decision was made to attack.

As for where bin Laden was found, which time. If you remember during the Battle of Tora Bora he was wounded. That was in Afganistan.

As for tax cuts not showing any benefit. Clinton cut taxes, though he was forced to by the Republians, and that is when we had this surplus that you refer to. He also cut Welfare through Welfare Reform, again because the Republicans forced him to, and that had a large affect on the budget.

[Kadmos]

I can't believe I have to answer this. We were attacked by Al Qada, which was operating out of Afganistan with the full knowledge and support of the Taliban. When the Taliban would not give bin Laden up, that is when the decision was made to attack.

As for where bin Laden was found, which time. If you remember during the Battle of Tora Bora he was wounded. That was in Afganistan.

And we had what, 50 US troops at the battle of Tora Bora?

We seriously crippled the Taliban in a matter off weeks, same with Al Quida, and again in Iraq...a few weeks and the war was won.


As for tax cuts not showing any benefit. Clinton cut taxes, though he was forced to by the Republians, and that is when we had this surplus that you refer to. He also cut Welfare through Welfare Reform, again because the Republicans forced him to, and that had a large affect on the budget.

There were really only two big finical bills under Clinton.

Ok, fine, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 technically "cut taxes", and it wasn't certainly wasn't something Clinton exactly wanted. Of course at that time we had already been showing a surplus from the other bill.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, you know the one that gave us the surplus, the one that raised taxes on the top 1.2%, raised taxable portion of SS, fuel tax hike of about 5 cents per gallon, and created a 35% income tax for corporations.

So what was the result?
Well, the 93 act ushered in one of the most prosperous times in recent American history, gave us 20 million jobs, unemployment down under 4%, average personal income raised at 7% a year, the Dow raising at roughly 25% per year, Industrial production in the US raising nearly 6% a year, and of course the budget surplus and a real play to pay off the debt.

As to the 97 bill, the one that cut taxes and was "forced" on Clinton by the republicans who shortsightedly wanted to "keep our own damn money, because the gubberment shouldn't show a profit"...well we know what happened, the surplus was gone, government spending went up, the economy became unstable, jobs were lost.


By the way, the 93 bill, the one that actually did good...Not a single republican voted for it.

[Warthogg]

By the way, the 93 bill, the one that actually did good...Not a single republican voted for it.



Read my hips....more new taxes.


Wart

[JTHunter]

Let's see - who was president when fairy Franks was in bed with (LITERALLY) one of the people he was supposed to oversee? And how long had bilious Barney been on that committee?
The problems with Fannie and Freddie were well camoflaged so they didn't fail until the economy soured years later.
And who was it that helped get the "Community Redevelopment Act" that "urged/forced" banks to make those unsuitable loans?

[Kadmos]

And who was it that helped get the "Community Redevelopment Act" that "urged/forced" banks to make those unsuitable loans?[/SIZE][/FONT]

If you mean the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 I would guess probably Carter, Ford's term ended January 20th.

Frank didn't enter into federal service until 1981, so it wasn't him.

No one got "forced" to make loans, urged probably, but not forced, and with half of the foreclosures being in commercial real estate, which that act doesn't cover, well..that dog just doesn't hunt.

[Ruskiegunlover]

aparently, someone needs to read that act again. It certianly forced banks to make bad loans. The fed gov could come in and audit a bank to look at the loans they'd made, and deny them the ability to open new branch locations, hurt them financially, IF THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY OR ENOUGH bad loans. So yeah, I guess they did not have to make bad loans, as long as they had no intentions of ever expanding operations, opening other locations, etc. But thats not forcing now is it?

[Kadmos]

aparently, someone needs to read that act again. It certianly forced banks to make bad loans. The fed gov could come in and audit a bank to look at the loans they'd made, and deny them the ability to open new branch locations, hurt them financially, IF THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY OR ENOUGH bad loans. So yeah, I guess they did not have to make bad loans, as long as they had no intentions of ever expanding operations, opening other locations, etc. But thats not forcing now is it?

Yes banks mergers and new branches were subject to a CRA review, but it's not based on if the companies made bad loans, it was if they made any loans to certain areas, and if they hadn't then they had to show just cause why they hadn't.

The idea was that no, you can't open a bunch of branches in low income areas and only take deposits, you had to show you were also willing to make loans in that area.

It wasn't about forcing them to take bad loans, and it didn't require them to make bad loans, it simply stopped them from just ignoring and entire area and refusing to make any loans there.

Frankly, when it comes to the 2008 crisis, the CRA was essentially irrelevant, banks were making loans in low and mid income areas that they would have redlined in the late 70's at a higher rate then they were lending to affluent area, something the Act certainly didn't require.

Even by 2002 the FRB was doing studies on predatory lending in CRA areas, it was no longer a matter of being forced to loan, but possibly preying on the loanees trying to entice them into loans.

And even a cursory recollection of the time bears that out, we all should remember the TV ads that played practically nonstop "No credit, Bad Credit, No problem!" "We can lend to people with less than perfect credit" "Great rates for borrowers with credit problems" "Think you can't get a loan because of low income or bad credit? We can get you into a new home"


Blaming the CRA is bullshit.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Yes banks mergers and new branches were subject to a CRA review, but it's not based on if the companies made bad loans, it was if they made any loans to certain areas, and if they hadn't then they had to show just cause why they hadn't.

The idea was that no, you can't open a bunch of branches in low income areas and only take deposits, you had to show you were also willing to make loans in that area.

It wasn't about forcing them to take bad loans, and it didn't require them to make bad loans, it simply stopped them from just ignoring and entire area and refusing to make any loans there.

Frankly, when it comes to the 2008 crisis, the CRA was essentially irrelevant, banks were making loans in low and mid income areas that they would have redlined in the late 70's at a higher rate then they were lending to affluent area, something the Act certainly didn't require.

Even by 2002 the FRB was doing studies on predatory lending in CRA areas, it was no longer a matter of being forced to loan, but possibly preying on the loanees trying to entice them into loans.

And even a cursory recollection of the time bears that out, we all should remember the TV ads that played practically nonstop "No credit, Bad Credit, No problem!" "We can lend to people with less than perfect credit" "Great rates for borrowers with credit problems" "Think you can't get a loan because of low income or bad credit? We can get you into a new home"


Blaming the CRA is bullshit.

Talk about rewriting history. you're a good Democrat.

[Ruskiegunlover]

yeah kad, you are exactly right: you just danced around actually SAYING it was forcing banks to make bad loans. Did it ever occur to you that the 'bad areas' were just that: POOR areas, with bad homes unworthy of a loan? Or that the people wanting the loans maybe did not deserve them? So how exactly do you explain to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT why you did not obey them, and expect to get away with it? HA! The banks had to 'justify' why they did not make loans to certain areas.....hmmmmm.....given the socialist nature of the CRA, do you think the fed would accept ANY excuse? No, and the banks new it. They were forced into a bad situation, in which they would loose money (the socialists don't care, they think money grows on street corners for the banks and the rich). So, banks are gonna loose the money they loan on these people and homes, and they HAVE to recoup SOME of it, so what do they do? Search for a way to MAKE money off of the bad loans. They ARE in the business of making money, you know.


You dims are excellent at word games.

[Kadmos]

The thing is, I've seen what redlining can do, and I've seen what happens since the CRA.

Yes the bulk of the homes were in poor areas, and a lot more were in blue collar lower working class areas.

What happened was the banks simply took a map and drew red lines around a whole area and said "don't bother even taking applications".

It meant homes essentially couldn't be sold if you couldn't find a cash buyer, and home improvement loans were out of the question.

Basically it puts this untouchable cancer spot in the middle off the city. And obviously that cancer just spreads..the homes on the other side of the line soon become inside the line and the city dies.

Since the CRA made them actually look at the application they could see that the bulk of the people could pay the mortgage just fine, investors could once again buy multiple houses and rent them out. Being able to actually buy the houses and get loans to fix them up increased the home values, which meant people took better care of them, which meant they were worth even more.

I see it all over the city here, 100 year old houses that looked bombed out for decades have either been replaced or even more often restored. Neighborhoods that went from sketchy to trendy, with homes worth (and I mean really WORTH) 10-15 times what they would have sold for a just a couple decades ago.

And that has made a ton of investment, made jobs, stopped the government from having to fence off or mow those properties, brought in businesses.

Sure we've had some hits from the economy and the real estate problems, but you can really see how the city has come back.

30 years ago we were looking at ending up with a city like Detroit, now we've got a pretty vital city going here.

The thing is once the banks actually had to start to look at the applications and saw the reality of the situation they really liked what they saw, which was profits.

And seeing this, seeing this tangible change, well that makes me want to defend the CRA. Because it turned out to be good for the people, good for the city, and good for the banks.