2011-07-21T20:43:20Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/71732 2011-07-21T20:43:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-21:/comment/234618 peacefrog Ron Paul answered my question about why C4L supported this bill early on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UUR-gomIwqs Essentially they were told it would contain big cuts, caps, and a balanced budget amendment but didn't have the detials. They didn't find out until later that there would be over 2 trillion added to the debt. 2011-11-18T02:03:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-11-18:/comment/238602 nameman The website is adapted throughout the day by its agents andforum members. We are committed to accouterment you with the accoutrement bare to findthe best <a href="http://www.cheaptiffanymall.com" title="tiffany jewellery online store">tiffany jewellery online store</a> deals online. 2011-07-23T15:55:59Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-23:/comment/234654 bthockey I don't get it. Are the votes on the Senate part of this bill on OpenCongress backwards? It is saying that all the Republicans voted against it and all the Democrats voted for it. uh? 2011-07-19T13:54:58Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-19:/comment/234569 Pashta It's actually a historical average. Not "low level" but not "massive" either. See "Forbes Magazine":http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/07/18/mr-president-heres-that-balanced-approach-you-keep-demanding/ 2011-07-27T23:54:53Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-27:/comment/234761 gmarceau You are confusing DEFICIT with SPENDING. They are not the same thing. Deficit is how in the red we are each year, not how much we are spending. Your argument says 'spending', but your numbers are taken from the 'spending' chart. This is the right chart: "usgovernmentspending.com":http://bit.ly/pP5FdW It shows that spending was stable under Reagan at 22%, went down with Clinton to 18%, than up a bit with Bush 2000-2008 to 20%, and then WAY WAY up when Bush passed the bank bail out (to 25%). The only time spending was below 5% of GDP was at the start of the great depression, in 1930. 2011-07-19T13:48:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-19:/comment/234567 talikarni QUOTE: "...with total spending at no more than 18% of GDP, a historically low level." Excuse me? 18% is MASSIVE! Before 2008 we had not seen more than 6% since the Great Depression (see "usgovernmentspending.com":http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1930_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s ). I oppose this bill, we need to cut and cap the ceiling at no more than 5% of GDP, anything over 10% is a full blown depression (like now). Write your rep and ask them to oppose this bill until it is capped at 5%. Anything higher is just entirely too dangerous to the national economy. 2011-07-24T17:43:11Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-24:/comment/234694 drm Thanks for the note. Good to notice it, but all is correct, to the best of our knowledge. The specific vote was "On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 2560)", so it is conceivable that the Dems voted in favor of tabling the bill. The data is consistent with the roll call info on "GovTrack":http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-116, our data partner. Send an email to donny at opencongress dot org if you'd like to confirm this interpretation. Thanks for using OC, bthockey. 2011-07-20T20:57:59Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-20:/comment/234584 peacefrog Good points, I'm surprised actually that groups like the Campaign For Liberty were so strongly behind this bill when it's actually quite neocon in nature. A closer look reveals it really isn't moving in us in the right direction, rather it's essentially a Republican feel-good bill that offers more of the same. Anyway, we are likely to end up in even more wars, the excuse being to fight the undefinable, unwin-able war on terror and also as an excuse to not pay off our debts/cut spending. Why aren't they even discussing the fact that the debt to the FED should be waived? 2011-07-20T14:15:55Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-20:/comment/234582 neelorath 18% is just to high and it can be changed by future votes. There is nothing here that locks the Government into a real set budget. As always there is double talk in this bill and the commitment to real change is not here. We need to cut the spending drastically and bite the bullet now. "Trillion" is obviously not making a proper impression on most of these reps, and I guess not on the people either. We really can't afford to raise a few more trillion in the next few years. We need real cuts and using Terror as grounds for not capping military spending is not smart. We will be in continual war forever with the definition of war as fighting Terror. With Obama drawing down troops the military budget should be decreasing. Policing agencies have always fought terror, it is just easier to define and see at this time in history. We need to keep the military accountable on its spending and make sure it it wise about it as well. 2011-07-24T18:05:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-24:/comment/234695 bthockey Thank you for your comment! I must have missed that even thought it's extremely clear to see. Thanks! 2011-07-22T12:15:08Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-22:/comment/234630 kir We are spending above average. We are also borrowing a lot to do it. Let's reduce the spending of the federal government a little bit which can be done without really cutting anything just by shifting some things around and making them more efficient and then see what we can do from there. 2011-07-22T11:26:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-22:/comment/234629 meadowj Now, that the bill has been voted down by the senate, we can get the list of those that voted against it. Now we can work to get the ones out of office that speak of reform but double-face the issue at voting time. Regardless of the never ending numbers about how bad the budget and deficit are we all know that this has no good ending unless we get leaders that walk the walk. If you think the last election was historic just wait for the next one! 2011-07-29T00:14:26Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-29:/comment/234779 juanfarm is this the boehner plan? if not which bill is his plan so that i can read it? 2011-07-21T16:07:05Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-21:/comment/234612 Pashta I'm glad it passed. It's a reasonable compromise, the president gets one final increase in the debt ceiling, then there's real limits on spending and a balanced budget amendment. Win-Win. If they don't pass it in the senate expect a government shutdown. 2011-07-19T22:20:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-19:/comment/234572 peacefrog Either way we're in pretty deep. Does anyone here think our country can survive for even another 10 years economically, politically, spiritually? Even if we start reducing the deficits and eventually start paying down the debt, how much longer can our nation endure 20% + real unemployment while at the same time the government strips away our rights and destroys the remnants of our free markets? I'm trying to be positive about where we're at, but real optimism only exists when one understands the worst of one's circumstance and still chooses to forge ahead with nothing but pure faith and hope. In such a dire situation as what we face now, anything less is just wishful thinking, denial, and/or a hollow and baseless. If you really come to terms with what $14+ trillion in debt and $1.5 trillion annual deficits means for our nation, you'll realize it's nearly impossible to reverse. Historically, major empires fail because they become overextended economically. That's reality. 2011-10-25T20:53:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-25:/comment/236704 aross Testing reply. 2011-10-25T21:17:05Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-25:/comment/236707 aross test another reply 2011-07-25T13:46:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-25:/comment/234700 OPa_Infinity While I generally support the purpose of the bill, and some specific provisions, there are also some troubling provisions: - Block additional approved borrowing by the Treasury, until such time as both the House and Senate agree to and first pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and it is sent to the states for ratification. Delay in the process could result in default. - As worded, it gives extraordinary powers to the chairs of two committees as well as the Director of OMB. - As worded, it ties the hands of future members of Congress when it prohibits future discussion or debate of decisions made now, even when the financial situation could change drastically down the road. I could certainly see requiring a super-majority, but prohibiting discussion and debate? What happened to freedom of speech? Democratic process? A dangerous approach to governance. 2011-07-19T22:22:20Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-19:/comment/234573 peacefrog Having gotten my previous comment out there, I hope this bill passes because it's a step in the right direction, for once.