Thursday, February 4, 2010

This Is Generational Theft And We Will Hold Them Accountable For Their Vote

From the AP

The House on Thursday voted to allow the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt — or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident. The measure, approved 217-212, would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.
Already, the accumulated debt amounts to roughly $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.
Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations.
"I can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not an option," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If the United States defaults, investors will lose confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future.
Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous "no" vote from GOP members present.

And we have this half-arsed measure.

To help win passage, Democrats are also adopting — in a vote later Thursday afternoon — budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit — projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

Pay as you go, as this is referred to, is overrated. It doesn't do much. We don't need a pay as you go program. We need government to spend less money than it takes in period. 

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and unemployment insurance. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.
Most other benefit programs — including Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps — would be exempt from such cuts, and Republicans said that the rules lack teeth.
"In place of real fiscal discipline, it offers a phony pay-as-you-go rule that is more loopholes and exceptions and does nothing to tackle our government's long-term structural deficit," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.
Skeptics say lawmakers also will find ways around the new rules fairly easily. Congress, for example, can declare some spending an "emergency" — a likely scenario for votes later this month to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

In other words, the supposed safeguards are smoke and mirrors. It was thrown in because this is unpopular, and those who voted for it can pat themselves on the back and say they are watching the spending. In reality, they are doing jack.

"We don't have a choice," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. "We are on an unsustainable march toward a fiscal Armageddon." Obama's budget projects the government's debt doubling to $26 trillion over the next decade. It offers few solutions for seriously closing the gap other than promising to appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a plan to address the problem.

Commissions. Another joke. How about passing a budget that spends less money than it takes in. Period. That's it. It's not hard. All it takes is discipline, hard works, and balls. That's something that congress lacks, and that Obama never had.  

Thomas has the roll call vote. 217 yes votes. All democrats. 212 nays. 175 Republican and 37 democrat. 5 didn't vote, 2 democrats and 3 republicans.

Of the Michigan delegation.

District 1 - Stupak - Y
District 2 - Hoekstra - N
District 3 - Ehlers - N
District 4 - Camp - N
District 5 - Kildee - Y
District 6 - Upton - N
District 7 - Schauer - N
District 8 - Rogers - N
District 9 - Peters - N
District 10 - Miller - N
District 11 - McCotter - N
District 12 - Levin - Y
District 13 - Kilpatrick - Y
District 14 - Conyers - Y
District 15 - Dingell - Y

Schauer and Peters voted no. Feeling the heat from the populace?  Great job with your constent complaining to Peters, John. This is just crazy what they are doing to this country. It's like giving a shopaholic you platinum card with an almost $2 Trillion limit. Is Congress trying to bankrupt America? Why don't they cut spending and start paying off this debt? I was out of control when Bush and Congress did it and now it is 4 times worse then Bush and it's Obamas first year. What this admin and Congress are doing is criminal. If you have a state or a Congressperson you would like to out on this blog PLEASE DO. We will send them a copy of the blog so they know we are watching. And if a Congressperson voted against it let us know so we can thank them. We need to vote these gererational pirates out of office.


  1. Peters voting no is like Bruce FAILk deciding to not eat the 12th Krispy Kreme after he's already eaten 11. Too little too late.

  2. Another turd from the Obummer brain trust. What a bunch of idiots. This one is so stupid even some of the Hypocrats have caught on, and they are some of the dumbest people on the planet!

    Democrats balk at $30B tax credit for employers BY ED MORRISSEY

    Obama unveiled one policy in his State of the Union speech that initially sounded good to conservatives — a tax credit to incentivize hiring and wage increases in small businesses. He proposed a $5K credit for every new hire or every wage increase, although he tied it rhetorically to a new loan-incentive program that keeps TARP in business:

    "So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30B of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment."

    At least some of this makes sense, especially the elimination of capital-gains taxes on small business investment. Many would argue for across-the-board cuts in CG taxes, or elimination of CG taxes entirely. Such an environment would spur more risk-taking of a healthy kind, as people put their money into the kind of new ventures and expansion that lead to actual job creation. Why give corporations a better tax break than individuals, after all, when both investor classes have the same impact?

    The tax breaks for hiring and wage increases looks more like a gimmick than a policy, and even Obama’s allies in Congress scoff at it:

    Obama’s $33B proposal to offer payroll tax credits to create jobs is being met with opposition among some House Dems who question whether the incentives are strong enough.

    Rep. Mike Thompson, CA Dem, questioned whether a $5K payroll tax credit for every net new employee is strong enough to have an impact on the country’s 10% unemployment rate.

    “I don’t know anybody in business who hires an employee because they’re going to get a tax break,” Mr. Thompson said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing with Treasury Secretary Geithner. “People hire employees because they have work to do.”

    Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Texas Dem, cited “general consensus among tax experts is that the credit is a stinker because it simply encourages people to do what they would have done anyway.”

    This part of Obama’s plan seems poorly conceived. At even a minimum-wage position, the cost of an employee (with the kind of benefits Obama intends to mandate in other policies) would cost a business at least four times as much as the incentive. On the other hand, the application of the incentive to wage increases is more likely to deter employers from hiring than to incentivize them. A $2K raise, or roughly $1/hour, would allow the employer to demand more productivity from an existing employee while pocketing the tax credit difference of $3K.

    Businesses do not hire people to cash in on tax credits. They hire people when they have too much work for their existing workforce. The tax incentive won’t prompt businesses to hire people without first having the unfilled demand. Anyone who had a passing knowledge of business practice and actual accounting would have seen this immediately. As Doggett points out, businesses who claim the tax credit would have hired new employees anyway, and those that cannot afford new hires won’t change their mind for a tax credit of only five grand.

    The entire notion of providing incentives for hiring that is disconnected from demand reveals a mindset where central planning is given higher priority than market conditions. Obama would do better to relieve the tax burden on investors and scale back the regulatory Leviathan he’s attempting to build. We can have a real recovery if Obama would just get out of the way.

  3. This cracks me up to no end. FAILk's fabled Hypocrats, paragon of transparency and "realness". Nothing but partisan, fake hacks. I'm soooo surprised Olbuttman and MadCow didn't make any mention of this!:

    Obama and Dems Stage Phony TV Event

    You can’t always believe what you see on TV especially when it emanates from the Obama administration and the Democrat Party.

    According to the New York Times, Obama had a pep talk to encourage Democrat senators to carry on passing Health Care reform for the American people.

    The NY Times wrote:
    “At times, the president’s appearance took on the air of a pep rally, complete with back-slapping jokes and stinging criticism of Republicans. But at other points it seemed as though the senators had been summoned to the principal’s office, with Mr. Obama delivering a stern reminder to do better, work harder and live up to their potential.”

    But the NY Times, the paper of record according the The Left, forgot to mention what was really occurring at the same event because according to The Hill, there was much more to meet the eye.

    The Hill wrote:
    “Senators did not want to press Obama on healthcare reform in front of television cameras for fear of putting him in an awkward spot.”

    Those Democrats are really considerate, aren’t they?

    The Hill also wrote:
    “Senate Democrats held back from asking President Barack Obama about healthcare reform during a carefully scripted question-and-answer session in front of television cameras.
    With the cameras rolling, a group of senators selected in advance by the Democratic leadership asked questions about such topics as partisan gridlock and GOP obstruction.”

    Yeah, those pesky GOPer’s always have to throw in a monkey wrench.

    The Hill continues:
    “One Democratic senator even grew heated in his remarks, according to the source.
    ‘It wasn’t a discussion about how to get from Point A to Point B; it was a discussion about the lack of a plan to get from Point A to Point B,” said a person who attended the meeting. “Many of the members were frustrated, but one person really expressed his frustration.”

    I’m sure Jeff Zenely and David M. Herszenhorn of the NY Times couldn’t possibly cover everthing that was going on at this event.

    They only have four legs and four eyes and there was so many senators there that they just couldn’t find all the news that was fit to print.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. I just found this blog from . There are a lot of blogs talking behind your back. You must be doing something right. I like the way you don't care what anyone thinks. I voted you the top blog for it's debates in the comments.

  6. Jay-Ney Are You Talking About NOBAMA Money or Citizens Tax Dollars! To this Administration its TWO Different Things!

    You Know if its NOBAMA Money Just Print It and SPEND It!

    If Its Citizens Tax Dollars Just Spend IT!

  7. Thank you Sumoaniko. I didn't know the blog was on there. I'll check it out.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.