Quantcast
U.S. & World

Congress OKs cliff deal, signaling future fights

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    Of course a big part of the "future fights" refers to the debt ceiling.

    I heard a line on Fox yesterday where a "financial expert" explained that "raising the debt ceiling gives Obama the ability to spend more money". And some wonder why Fox news viewers get it wrong so often.

    The concept is not that difficult

    Spending must be voted on by congress. And it is.

    Money is then spent (spending approved by congress).
    Then the bill must be paid.

    Raising the debt ceiling allows you to pay the bill. Period.

    You may not like what your spouse bought on the credit card, but you still have to pay the bill.

    Congress, specifically the GOP, wants to hold back the credit card payment on things that were purchased earlier. (and a big chunk of it, THEY BOUGHT.)

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    As Joe Blow stated, not raising the debt ceiling is the same as sitting down and eating a meal, then refusing to pay for it. Congress controls spending, not the president. If you think the country is spending too much money, look to congress. The president does not control the purse strings.

  • Lone Eagle Aurora, CO
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Article 1 section 7 of the United States Constitution, paragraph 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;...

    Since this "fiscal cliff" bill deals with taxes (Revenues), in order for it to be Constitutional, it is required to have originated in the House of Representatives. Since it started in the senate, it is an unconstitutional law. But then so was the "Obamacare" law -- it was judged to have a tax provision in it by the SCOTUS and also originated in the senate. Our national legislators are violating the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States -- but I guess that oath doesn't mean anything anymore.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    @ Lone Eagle. Excellent point! Is the "constitution hanging by a thread" yet?

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    I have a prediction.
    I see the left and right voters coming together in short time, maybe within the next 10 years, and revolting against all politicians.
    I see the federal government dwindling to manage just a very small piece of this nation.
    What will trigger this event?
    Total bankruptcy of the nation.
    It's coming...

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    You guys must be livid that Mitch McConnell would so blatantly disregard the constitution by spearheading this illegal legislation.

    Why does the GOP not have more respect for this sacred document?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    Lone Eagle, congress did attempt to originate this legislation. But Boehner could not get the votes for it. So the House then stated they were waiting on the Senate to do something first. The Senate had already passed a bill a few months ago, but the House refused to bring it up for a vote. So the Senate had to go back and start over. And they did. And it passed. So now congress can keep spending money the same way they have been.

  • matt4226 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Anyone else notice how the elected officials from Utah voted on this bill?

    4 voted against
    1 voted for

    If you think Matheson was the single vote for you would be wrong. It was Hatch who voted yes while Matheson voted no along with Bishop, Chaffetz and Lee.

  • utahcountyute Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    He signed the bill in Hawaii?

    That's just not right.

  • Zadruga Guy West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Actually, the bill DID originate in the House. The House passed a bill back in the summer that went to the Senate but never got consideration there until now. What the Senate did is, basically, was to finally take up the House-passed bill and then replace almost all of the text of it by the amendment process. The bill then went back to the House, which agreed to the Senate amendments in the vote held last night.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @Joe Blow

    Fox news does not get it wrong very often. They are not afraid to tell you the truth about Pres. Obama. During the campaign I heard Fox talk more about Obama's poor economic record than any other network. They warned us of the new taxes that were hidden in "Obamacare" that no one else wanted to talk about. You are right that Congress is in charge of spending. From 2008 -2010 Obama had Democrats in control of both Houses. That is when he passed the stimulus which gave over a billion dollars to bankrupts companies such as Solyndra, Ener 1 etc.. He also got "Obamacare" passed which caused him to lose the House of Representatives. Of course I did not vote for him I voted for fiscal responsibility and the main stream media ignored his record and helped him get back into office.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    JoeBlow is correct...except that those who rate nations and set interest could care less about the excuses. All they see is the USA printing money and spending like they had something in the bank.
    My wife may be a nice person but the mortgage company, the car loan company and the credit card company don't care why we aren't paying the bills.
    So it goes with America. When "the full faith and credit of the United States" becomes a meaningless phrase, we won't care that congress followed their own spending rules.
    Once again congress and the president sent a message to the world that we are fiscally out of control.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    MorganH

    I am the first to say that the Dems are big spenders. Many on the right will agree with me. The dems have and will continue to spend us into oblivion.

    As you said - "You are right that Congress is in charge of spending. From 2008 -2010 Obama had Democrats in control of both Houses. "

    But lets look at the complete picture. From 2001-2006 Bush had Republicans in control of both houses. Yes, he cut taxes, but increased spending. The GOP let house, senate and president got us into wars that they did not fund, then gave us all a check for surplus taxes while cutting tax rates.

    I will not (and can not) defend the record of the Democrats. But, if I could only get those on the right to see that their beloved GOP is equally guilty, I would be happy.

    Bottom line - both GOP and the Dems have dug a hole. One can argue who dug more, but the differences are minute regardless of who is worse.

    Now the right will proceed to tell me how Obama is worse (while closing their eyes, plugging their ears and chanting la la la la la la)

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    @lone eagle
    your right they are suppose to originate in the house and all the representatives of the house should be thrown out for abdicating their responsibilities to the senate. The house failed to meet its most basic responsibility.

  • matt4226 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    Both parties are responsible for the current budget mess. Both parties have voted for and passed legislation over the past 30 years to cut taxes and increase spending. Both parties are owned by lobbyists who fund their election campaigns and then get special treatment in return. Both parties are filled with career politicians who have made millions of dollars for their 'service' and will continue to make millions more with their lucrative pensions.

    Who is to blame for this? All of us! Why do we continue to accept the status quo? Surveys show Congress has an approval rating in the low teens, yet a majority of the members get re-elected.

    Here are some ideas to change the status quo.

    #1 - Term limits for members of Congress
    #2 - Eliminate pension for members of Congress
    #3 - Congressional district boundaries determined by non-partisan board
    #4 - Members of Congress lose their salary if they fail to pass a budget on time
    #5 - Public funding of campaigns

    If members of congress weren't so concerned with getting re-elected they might start doing what is best for America even if that means passing unpopular legislation.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    Matt4226 & Joe Blow-
    Excellent comments and spot on. We won't get control of our goverment and change our predicatment until we change how our politicans are choosen and what type of compensation they receive. We need real leaders and Amerian patriots to stand up and say, do and create groundwork for the following:
    1) We serve for a limited time
    2) We get paid no more than the average of our contstiutents
    3) We get no pension, other than what we contribute while we serve
    4) Our campaign spending is limited so that all can run, not just the wealthy or those who sell out to the deepest pockets.

    These things would represent real change and restore democracy to the greatest country on Earth.

  • I Bleed Blue Las Vegas, NV
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    This deal could have been pulled off a month ago and ended the uncertainty during the Christmas season. I'm tired of these guys always coming down to the last minute. They continue to kick the spending problem down the road. But what should we expect from the circus we call congress. Poor old Boehner then gets dressed down by Cristy for lack of spending for Sandy victims. The republican party is a mess.