.....

The various plans being put forth from the Republican side range on a sliding scale from pure political expediency (giving the Dems all the debt raise they want, but making them take the blame, such as there is), to what conservatives know is the right thing to do- cut federal spending back to a level such that this country can actually live within its means. That requires a 40% reduction in the federal budget. Everyone has seen the polls- the public wants a balanced budget, but doesn't want to give up any of the benefits it has grown "entitled" to. Given this lala-land electorate, there will never be any way to scale back spending voluntarily. From one of Dan's previous posts:

"A Democrat-controlled Senate and White House will never pass the kind of serious plan we want as Conservatives."

True enough. The problem is, neither will a Republican one. Let's consider the best case scenario- Reps win both houses of Congress in 2012, and the presidency. Once in full control, will they really vote to make serious cuts? Take just the latest big addition before Obamacare, the Medicare drug benefit. Can they actually vote to kill it? The public backlash would be intense. Obamacare itself, I give a 50% chance of being repealed, just because it isn't accepted as just another entitlement yet. Think what would have to be cut to reduce spending by 40%. Would they even cut 10% a year? Realistically, the reaction would make those votes impossible, and they know it.

The only way the budget will ever get back to being balanced is when it happens by force- there are no choices left for either side. That will happen eventually, it's just a question of when, not if. Will the Republicans want it to happen when they have sole responsibility? Hardly- roles will be reversed, some token minor reductions will be approved, but the unpopular stuff will just be kicked down the road. The best time for the debt house of cards to crash, from a conservative point of view, is right now. Yes, the administration and MSM will point the blame at Republicans, but sixteen months from now, that's going to be a weak argument. With control of only one house of congress, the automatic "throw the bums out" reaction to an economic reverse will apply more to Democrats than Republicans. Plenty of people will complain about "polarized politics", but the years of wrangling during the Obama administration will just seem like more of what people are used to by now.

Oh boy! Where does someone sign?

What do we need democrats for with republicans like this?

Second, I don't know if this has a name attached to it, but Hannity put out a great idea the past few nights. Lock in the budget at its current level. No increases whatsoever (they cited "extenuating circumstances" -  i.e. war, disaster...the usual wiggle room to allow them an out). Then reduce spending by 1% every subsequent year.

Myself personally, I'd rather see them stick to their promise and require Constitutional Authority for all appropriations (that pesky page 33 again). If you try one of the many "calculators" out there, the federal budget is easily balanced with room to spare, when this is actually utilized.

Whether you like him or not, Rep. Paul described this situation the best,"If debt is the problem, then why do you want more of it?"

Third, get ready to combat the massive spin by the MSM when August 2 comes and goes w/o anything in place and Pres. B.O. continues putting Cloward-Piven into practice.

When that day passes, it will be like a massive wet dream for the Obama Zombies masquerading as journalists (a tingle up their leg doesn't even begin to describe it), when they parade everyone with a "-d" after their name on TV next to people who were affected by the gov't spigot being turned off.

Woe to the person who cannot continue their shrimp farm, cowboy poetry, rebuilding of Mosques in foreign countries or directly aiding the Taliban without federal money.

Anywho, the latest fish wrap.com published rundown...

A windsock...

Walberg, R-Tipton, is undecided on how he will vote, said his chief of staff, Joe Wicks.

Rather shocked on this one...

Freshman Rep. Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, has not indicated how he will vote.

A bumbling caved in windsock playing to the crowd on Facebook...

This evening, Boehner picked up the support of Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, who was unsure of how he'd vote earlier in the day.

"While I believe the new Budget Control Act does not go nearly far enough in reducing spending, I support it because this plan reflects my firm commitment to overall government spending caps and a balanced budget amendment," Huizenga said in a statement issued shortly after 5 p.m.

This morning, the tea party-backed lawmaker from Michigan's 2nd District was on CBS's Early Show to discuss his consternation over the bill. After making no commitments on air, Huizenga asked his constituents via Facebook whether he should vote for or against the bill.

I'd rather have his Facebook votes than his kind of leadership.

My Rep.?  Dammit!  Doctor Dan, I was just getting to know ya, but you've f#@%ed up twice now...

Another Michigan freshman congressman, Dan Benishek, R-Crystal Falls, also threw his support behind the Boehner bill. He was expected to vote no, but this morning seemed to be softening less than a day after Boehner reportedly told GOP conservatives to "get your a-- in line" behind his bill.

Benishek's change of heart stemmed from a desire to not vote in line with Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

WTF!?!?  So what!  So, former Speaker Blinky gets this vote right.  That's why you object?

"The speaker's plan is not everything we need," Benishek, who also has support from tea party followers, wrote to followers on his Facebook page, "but the other options are far worse."

I call bullsh!t, Doctor Dan.  You pulled the same crap with Big Gummint spending before.  At least Stupak voted against raising the Debt Ceilings when guys like Hoekstra wouldn't.  Hello?  Obama spending isn't part of your teams platform, Doctor Dan.  Block it.  Vote No.  I'll be your best ally.  Don't?  You've lost me forever.

The rest gets more disgusting from here...

More established Michigan Republicans were throwing their support behind the Boehner plan, too.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, who chairs the lower chamber's Ways and Means Committee, led the GOP in a late afternoon floor debate on the bill.

"Congress must act to cut spending and get our budget under control," he said. "The bill does that." Camp also defended the Boehner plan's short-term increase, which would set up another debt ceiling battle for next year, right in the middle of the presidential election, noting 22 of the past 31 debt limit increases were for less than a year.

Plus, Camp noted, the bill could be "our last chance."

Ya, "last chance" to guarantee a genuine Democrat president his second term in office.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Livonia, the 11th District congressman who's in the midst of a long-shot bid for the White House, confirmed he'll be a "yes" vote behind the Boehner plan.

Speaking on the floor of the House, McCotter said "we have before us a plan that can work. It is not a perfect plan; people on both sides of the aisle have their qualms with it."

Boehners' Plan sucks, so the union puppet Thesaurus McCotter will vote for it anyway.  Yep, he's too limpd!ck to run against Sen. Stabenow with his voting record, but brazen enough to run his mouth on a bogus presidential campaign book peddling tour using his PAC monies.  And the current MI-GOP protected McCotter's District, why?

Not so much as a peep out of Comrade Fred Upton's corner.  I'm so shocked.

These damn Republicans are no different than the Democrats.

Mark Levin was right.

And I got to thinking last night - what would happen to me if my hubby and I did this?

We own our own business, we both work.  He works 12 hrs a day at the business and I work at a separate job and in the evening I do the books for the business.  Come October 1st, hubby starts second job that runs thru April 10th or so.  No time for bringing in more income.  We have 4 employees total.  We own all our equipment outright with the exception of one vehicle.

We have owned our current home for 8 yrs, have a mortgage and it is underwater by about $15K.  We have a car payment and owe about $5K total on some misc household purchases and credit cards.  Right now we have a credit limit of about $30K on the cards

Here is my question to all of you?  Should I call our credit card companies and ask to raise my credit limits to say around $100K.   We would like to give our employees "free" health care and have decided that because we work so hard we "deserve" a vacation home.  We found the perfect place and qualify for $200K second mortgage but we would never be able to make the payments and taxes.  So we thought if we raised our credit limit we could pay the monthly payments for the "free" health care and the new vacation home with our credit cards.  Then when that money runs out we will just ask the credit card companies to once again raise the limit.  Or we could go to the bank and ask them to "give" us say $300K to cover everything and then in the next ten years, MAYBE we might be able to cut back on something so we could pay for those things ourselves.

But Senator McConnell does make a good point in his floor speech (video below), in that no matter what the House passes, Senator Reid has already decided that it'll be dead on arrival in the upper chamber.