Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    House just voted to raise debt 1.9 Trillion. Peters was for it before being against it.

    By Republican Michigander, Section News
    Posted on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    Tags: spending, gary peters, MI-09 (all tags)

    A round of Bronx Cheers and boo birds go to the US House today. They voted 217-212 to raise the debt ceiling nearly $2 Trillion more dollars. Obama will sign this, proving that he is no fiscal conservative.

    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? Or are you being chameleons? In reality, the no vote from Peters was crap. Schauer's wasn't, and give credit where it is due. Peters however was for it before he was against it. Here's the procedure vote to consider the resolution in the first place. Peters voted yes to consider this, and then voted no for the final vote to make himself  look good.

    If you're for big spending and debt, at least have the balls to be for it both times it is up. At least Dingell is honest about his spending. Peters is just a coward and I hope Rocky Raczkowski and Paul Welday remind everyone of this vote.

    < How To Become One of the Best School Districts in Michigan | THE Daily News Source >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Schauer's vote (none / 0) (#1)
    by geek49203 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:04:46 PM EST
    Yes, give credit where credit is due.

    However, I suspect that his (and Peters') vote was with the permission of Speaker Pelosi.  As late as this morning, Schauer's office couldn't tell me how Mark would vote.  You'd think that if Mark was dead set against this cap increase, he would've been saying so before the vote.  What I believe is that he had to wait until Pelosi counted votes, and he was cleared to vote against the bill (and in favor of his re-election).

    So now, Mark is walking around like he's discovered the "ghosts" of his deficit-hawk predecessor, Nick Smith, or even Tim Walberg.  However, the truth is that Mark's vote is still per direction of Pelosi Democrats.  

    Schauer and Granholm did more (none / 0) (#6)
    by BruceB on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:11:56 PM EST
    in the short time they were working together in Michigan to destroy the Michigan economy then anyone before them.  They have truly blown us away!  Now with Granholm done this coming November and if Schauer gets relected I am certain that they will get together again and finally destroy the American economy.  Remember, President Obama has been getting advice from Granholm on the economy?  Just what does Granholm know about economics?  What does Schauer know about economics?  We know what President Obama knows about economics, nothing!  

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search