E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe federal budget comes back into the Washington political spotlight this week, as Congress tries to move forward on government spending for the rest of this year as well as a budget for the next.
The clashing fiscal priorities of congressional Democrats and Republicans will be on full display for the next two weeks with deadlines looming as early as the end of March.
Even as members of Congress work on these plans, the spending reductions, also known as the “sequester,” required by the Budget Control Act remain in effect, slicing 6 percent from non-defense, non-entitlement spending and 8 percent from defense spending in the current fiscal year.
Entitlement spending through programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as "food stamps," is immune from the sequester’s cuts, although Medicare providers and plans are subject to a two percent cut. At this point there appears to be little likelihood of an agreement that would undo the sequester.
Here are the significant budget actions coming up in the weeks ahead:
White House spokesman Jay Carney talks about President Obama's meetings on Capitol Hill this week with lawmakers.
This week
Obama goes to Capitol Hill to hold separate meetings with Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
White House spokesman Jay Carney cautioned Monday that these meetings would not be budget negotiations. “I wouldn’t expect that they’re going to trade paper on numbers,” he said. Obama’s goal in the meetings, said Carney, was “making clear what his policy positions are, making clear his sincerity” in seeking lower budget deficits.
This week the Senate takes up its version of a bill – called a continuing resolution, or CR – to keep funding the government through the end of the current fiscal year. Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., will release her CR Monday.
Last week, the House approved its version of the continuing resolution, with a bipartisan coalition of 53 Democrats and 214 Republicans supplying the votes to pass it.
The House bill, worth $982 billion, includes $518 billion in defense funding and another $87.2 billion for overseas military operations such as those in Afghanistan and North Africa.
Ordinarily a CR continues funding for federal departments and agencies at the prior year’s level, but the House CR contains some spending adjustments – known on Capitol Hill as “CR anomalies” – which allow the Defense Department more leeway in its use of funds.
The House CR includes funds important to specific defense-dependent districts – such as funding for the building of two Virginia-class submarines in 2014 and funds for research and development on a submarine that will replace the Reagan-era Ohio-class submarines.
The House CR also includes some spending increases in certain programs such as a provision allowing the Customs and Border Protection agency to maintain its current staffing levels and a 1.7 percent pay increase for military personnel.
If the Senate CR differs from the House-passed CR, the two chambers would need to negotiate a compromise.
In order to avert a government shutdown, both Obama and congressional leaders want to get a CR enacted by March 27, when the current one expires.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last Thursday that the Senate must finish its work on the CR this week because next week will be devoted to debating and passing a FY2014 budget blueprint. “And we have to do that before the break we take for Easter,” Reid said. Both chambers of Congress take a two-week break for Passover and Easter the weeks of March 25 and April 1.
Also this week, the chairmen of both the House Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Committee are expected to release their budget blueprints for fiscal year 2014. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution since 2009.
While most federal spending is mandatory – for example Social Security benefits – and is on a kind of auto-pilot (the money goes to those who meet the eligibility criteria), the congressional budget resolution is an important device for raising or lowering spending levels on items such as the National Park Service, weather satellites and the National Science Foundation, which funds basic research.
Also under a budget process known as “reconciliation,” tax increases and changes in entitlement programs could be approved with a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the usual 60-vote requirement needed to advance legislation.
But on Monday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee urged Democrats to not use budget reconciliation to enact tax increases. Hatch said there's bipartisan interest in enacting comprehensive tax reform through the normal Finance Committee process, but that "it will poison the well for tax reform, making it all but impossible" if the Democrats choose to use the reconciliation route.
Pool / Reuters file photo
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
The people to watch are Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
A key point of contention in Ryan’s budget plan last year was his call for changes to Medicare beginning in 2023. Ryan’s proposal would have applied market principles to Medicare by encouraging seniors to shop among private-sector insurance providers.
Ryan’s 2012 plan would also have imposed a limit on the growth of per capita Medicare spending for people reaching eligibility after 2023.
Next week
The Senate is scheduled to debate Murray’s FY 2014 budget proposal. Senate rules allow senators to offer dozens of amendments and some of those votes will likely put members who are up for reelection next year in a difficult position of voting for spending cuts or tax increases.
Once each house passes its FY2014 budget plan, the two sides would need to meet and come up with a compromise plan – but even without a formal FY2014 budget resolution, spending could continue if Congress passed a new CR for FY2014.
Beyond next week
The president’s budget plan is required by law to be submitted to Congress no later than the first Monday in February, but Obama hasn’t yet released his plan for FY2014.
Asked Monday when Obama will deliver his budget proposal, Carney said “I don’t have a date certain for you on the president’s budget; it’s being worked on.” Carney said Obama and his aides are watching the budget plans being proposed by Ryan and Murray and that Obama will work with Congress to try to come up with a plan to reduce budget deficits and encourage economic growth.
This summer
According to Bipartisan Policy Center, the government will reach its borrowing limit by August. Obama and Congress will need to devise an agreement that would raise the borrowing limit. It’s too soon to know whether House Speaker John Boehner will seek to use the debt ceiling as another occasion to pressure Obama to make more spending cuts – especially in the entitlement programs.
This story was originally published on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:17 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
It's now March 11 and the President hasn't submitted his budget as required by law? Once again, it seems he's leading from behind and will wait to demonize any budget that the GOP passes in the house.
Gotta wonder what his credit score is. Can you imagine running your personal finances like this? :-)
Complain about the President's budget being late, while Ryan drivels out the budget nonsense that lost him the election.
Our only hope is the Senate and their proposal.
STLM: WRONG!
The president's budget is posted at the WhiteHouse website, and has been up there for some time.
:-)
STLM: WRONG!
The president's budget is posted at the WhiteHouse website, and has been up there for some time.
:-)
STLM: WRONG!
The president's budget is posted at the WhiteHouse.gov/omb/budget website, and has been up there for some time.
:-)
KC_NC.... It appears you have a very limited reading comprehension. You are wrong, the article even states you are wrong. So, quit your typical leftist lying and try getting your facts correct. And, in the future, so you do not look stupid, try to make sure what you post is correct!
The president’s budget plan is required by law to be submitted to Congress no later than the first Monday in February, but Obama hasn’t yet released his plan for FY2014.
Asked Monday when Obama will deliver his budget proposal, Carney said “I don’t have a date certain for you on the president’s budget; it’s being worked on.”
Wow, here we go again.
I'm really not sure why food stamps and other welfare is off the table. That's an area that there's a ton in money to be saved in.
STLM: you are the one who is not bothering to look around, and has reading comprehension problems: guess what, reporters who write articles are sometimes wrong (LIKE YOU). I have a JD, among other degrees, and didn't end up on Law Review with reading comprehension issues.
go here if you want to see the President's budget . . . unless clicking a link is too much of a challenge, in which case, go back to Faux Noise:
To download "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013" as a single PDF click here (256 pages, 4.6 MB)
idiot RWNJ.
So if you cut food stamps for the poor what will they eat?
I know....I know......Republicans will say, "let them eat cake".
How to spend money is about the values and cultures of this nation.
.
When GW Bush launched 2 unfunded wars, the future generations are stuck with the bill..Bush is a war-monger, American kids live in hunger.
.
When the RWNJs give tax cuts for the rich, tax credits for corporations, the market goes down, the bottom 99% suffers.
KC..
Did posting that three times actually help you to believe your own statement.
Posting anything on WhiteHouse.gov is rather useless.....He is over a month late in delivering his budget to Congress. Merely posting talking points on .gov website is just lazy.
From the article...
Breaking the law so that he can either float ideas in the media or see what public opinion is before he commits is nothing more than a refusal to do his job.
Why should the President be on time, when all that happens is that he is blocked, stalled or obstructed.
Let the Republicans trot out their plan first, and they will, same old drivel that lost them the election.
@KC, that is his budget for the CURRENT fiscal year that both houses of Congress failed to pass. What was due in February and hasn't been submitted yet is the FY2014 budget proposal (FY begins October 1, 2013). He had one almost ready to submit in early January, but with all of the sequester issues, the OMB had not completed their work of determining how the additional tax revenue passed right as they were trying to finalize their budget proposal would affect their assessments and what areas would need what size cuts. Each agency and department has to submit their requests to the OMB, which then puts together the proposal which is then sent to the President for his approval/changes, then sent on to Congress.
KC_NC.... I'm certain of one thing. You certainly would never be hired as my attorney since you seem to not be able to read and understand specific details. The President's budget you refered to was for FY2013. His proposed budget for FY2014 was due the first week of Feb. and has yet to be submitted. I even cited the NBC news article. I made no mention of Fox at all.
On another note, good for you having a JD. It's clear, however, that having a JD does not mean you have any idea as to how to handle financial matters. An since you want to tout what education you have, I'll do the same, I have a MBA, Master's In Account, Master's in Finance, as well as a CPA license.
Eric, Try to remember that a little less than 1/2 Americans did not vote for your Messiah. Must you make excuses for everything he does? It kind of sounds pathetic. The President should be on time because.....he IS the President. If Bush were not to have an approved budget for his whole 1st term you liberals would be foaming at the mouth...such hypocrites.
KC_NC
I hope you aren't a tax lawyer...
Eric let me see if I can help you with that:
1) Because he is supposed to be the leader of this great nation.
2) Because it is the law, stated in the constitution.
3) Because he earns a really good paycheck with phenomenal benefits and untold resources to perform.
FYI...The Republicans have been "trotting out" their budgets for the past few years without fail...then they send it to the Senate where Harry Reid attempts to hide it in the pantry behind the toilet paper so he doesn't actually have to do his job any more effectively than the President.
BTW, I posted weeks ago that 2013 budget and asked Newsvine posters to go through it line by line and show us what they would cut, by what percentage, and their reasoning/justification for the cuts. Only one person PARTIALLY responded by saying "cut this item" with NO explanation of why s/he would make those cuts. It's fine to say you want to make the cut, but you have to have a full understanding of what that line item entails before you cut it. That is what most citizens do not understand, nor do most members of Congress. They pass all kinds of appropriations bills, with all kinds of pork attached (in the case of many GOP members, they attach the pork, then vote against the bill so that they can go back home and brag that they voted against the bill, but then take credit for all of the pork they got for their district/state.) They don't follow their own budget resolutions (if their side of Congress even passed one) when passing spending appropriations, and often NEVER get some of the departmental appropriations passed. They continue to fund those departments with Continuing Resolutions. The ONLY appropriation bill that always gets passed by the end of September is the Congressional appropriations. Ever wonder why that is? That is the LAST appropriation that should be passed and definitely is the one appropriation that I would cut by 40%-50%.
Actually that deadline is NOT part of the Constitution but part of a Congressional Budget act of 1974.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155
(1) Eric - enjoy your posts!
(2) sorry all for the triple post - I only hit "post" once, so have no idea why that one is there 3x
:-)
Oh, in case you are too lazy to go to that link, here is the main reason Congress has failed to accept the President's Budget proposals during his first term...neither house of Congress wanted to be stuck with the enforcement portion of the 1974 act. They would have had a really hard time attaching all of their non-germain pork to each of the appropriations bills.
What really needs to be done is both the house and the senate do the jobs they were elected to do rather than playing at politics as they have done for years. What is amazing that considering that none of the politicans we have in office today other than the newbes, have done what they were elected to do. PLus,,they keep getting relected..and drawing 150K plus a year for what ?
@watt75, I guess those that didn't vote weren't very interested in Romney.
@Txmom, if Republicans would stop filibustering the Senate budget maybe it could come up for a vote.
Eric-913730
Correct me if I'm wrong (and trust me I've been wrong before) but the last time the POTUS submitted a budget I believe it couldn't even pass the democratic controlled senate.
Eric-913730
I guess that the 49% of Americans who didn't vote to re-elect Mr. Obama were not interested in re-electing Mr. Obama.
Interesting since Mr. "Pocket Veto" Reid wouldn't "floor" Mr. Obama's budget for a vote knowing that ZERO Senate members would vote "Yea".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Canary's White House Press briefings are going over as well as Mr. Biden's quips......like a lead balloon.
KC_NC
This is the point where you say: "You [STLMIke] were right, I was wrong." "I apologize for my arrogance."
There is no cutting of anything in Washington, or in the budget Ryan is proposing. All they do is slow the growth of the government. Reduce planned future spending increases. Note the word reduce, not eliminate. Take food stamps for example, in 2000 there were roughly 12 million recipients, and today almost 48 million. We have added 17 million to the food stamp rolls just since 2009. It cost 18 billion for the food stamp program in 2000, and today we are spending over 85 billion. 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps. That is a pretty sad commentary on the direction of this country. Right now the Republicans are pushing a budget that slows the growth of Washington's spending addiction, while Democrats will promote more spending and higher taxes in their proposal. The only thing that will save this country is private sector jobs. Until Washington can figure out what they need to do to make this country attractive to businesses again, all our politicians will be doing is trying to get another drop out of an ever shrinking bucket.
levithewonderdog
Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) presented that budget and brought it for a vote.
One thing worth noting on the budget Sessions submitted, it was about 1/20th the size of Obama's actual budget that year (in terms of content, 56 pages versus nearly 2000), so it's hard to say whether it was actually Obama's budget or just the Cliff's Notes version or something entirely different.
Sessions says his numbers were pulled directly from the budget. I haven't read over both, so I can't say if that's true or not. It wouldn't surprise me if it was.
Looking at the new Ryan budget bill, this dude is out to squish our President & Economy !!!
Wow! What a liar you are. The Senate has had years to try to vote on a budget, yet never has. Ryan filibustered for only 13 hours...
Sometimes I just don't understand the media. Why doesn't this headline read "Republicans continue to obstruct progress in Washington". Now that would be an honest and accurate statement of fact.
They act like this is normal state of affairs instead of another Republican manufactured crisis. When reporters and news editors are afraid to report the truth then we're all in trouble because their job is to point the spotlight on politicians that engage in this kind of political terrorism.
The Republican Party has been playing political games with the lives of millions of Americans for over four years now....... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
For the ignorant who think Democrats have already agreed to 1.6Trillion in cuts... no you haven't.
If you took the 2008 spending levels by baseline budget projections, the 2013 budget would be 600 Billion less than it currently is. Spending increased by 30% since 2008. A 1.6 Trillion cut is 15% of the growth instituted into the baseline budget under Obama.
The Stimulus/TARP were intended to be one time spending measures, but through continuing resolutions Reid/Pelosi made them part of the baseline budget. That increased the baseline budget by 500 Billion+ a year. Saying you are now seeing cuts is beyond myopic.
Likewise, there have been multiple tax increases already under Obama, yet he is only claiming 600 Billion in new revenue. ACA had almost 600 billion in increased taxes to pay for the increased spending. Various federal agencies have increased fee amounts. Revenue will be at 19.1% of GDP next year, a full percent above the historic average. Taxation is already above average.
Sorry to burst your lies, carry on.
If the republicans would STOP lacing 'budget' bills with personal attacks on our civil rights (RYAN GUILTY as a charged), democrats might also be more apt to looking at them. Course we all know the republicans still say less government, but that doesn't apply if you are a woman, a minority, gay/lesbians, or not christian, want to cut corporate and military welfare programs etc.
P.S. When will the republicans stop calling SS and Medicare entitlementz? We pay into those, they are NOT entitlements.
I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Republicans that Squish our Economy should go to Jail and throw the keys away !!!
Eric, you ask about food stamps.
They reached another record, yet liberals are claiming Obama has led the recovery. How do you parse those two contrary statements?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/46609072-people-food-stamps-2012_706745.html
Are you aware that liberals removed asset testing for food stamps and auto-enroll anybody on any federal assistance program? That means that a millionaire who chooses not to work can enroll on foodstamps (see lottery winner). It is a messed up system.
Federal Assistance (Not SS/Medicare/Medicaid) surged to over 1 Trillion dollars in spending, a higher percentage than ever is on some type of assistance, nearly 50% of households have one member on some form of assistance. When did the safety net no longer become a safety net but a giant bouncing castle?
A) You need to learn what entitlement means
B) Both parties call them entitlements, you are just a partisan hack.
I love the way Carney says "I wouldn't expect that they're going to trade paper on numbers". Hell no they won't, Obama never leaves himself open to looking like a fool, even though he often is one. He is NEVER specific, he tells everyone exactly what he wants and blames others when he doesn't get exactly his way. A true leader would put things down in writing and get the conversation started. A true leader would bend a little to get something done even if it isn't exactly what they wanted. I am sorry to say that President Obama is not a leader. He acts more like a dictator.
Obama won't submit his Budget Request, until sometime in April, he wants to see what the House and Senate Budgets look like first. Mr. President that is not being a leader but a follower. The President is to submit his Budget Request NLT than 1st week in February. Congress is suppose to use the President's Budget request to assist them in writing their own since they can't/won't know what monies the President wants/needs for the Executive Branch.
Remember the President's Budget Request, (put together by OMB), addresses spending and revenue for the coming Fiscal Year.
Here is the President's 2013 budget.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action;jsessionid=53hJR2zKQTjt91Br2j4zDQLtqHPfnZb18tF9hQ9XgqsHwr3hwxWb!1581217498!222129792?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2013&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true&ycord=0
People need to stop saying that there is none.
Here are all of his budgets, so knock off the lies.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET
Is every Republican here wealthy? If so, that's great and I'm truly happy for you all. However, I can not for the life of me understand why every American isn't turned upside down with even the thought that SS and MC may be changed or abolished. SS and MC are both trust funds, not government money. The only role of our government is administrator of the trusts, which is how they've wanted it. These funds were never to be touched. But they were, and the hardest hitter was Ronald Reagan. Visit the link below...
What Reagan took was replaced with virtually worthless IOU...this country can not honor those IOUs. And this country also can not pay the short fall in Social Security for the same reason they can't honor the IOUs. It's a crazy merry-go-round with no end in sight until someone at a high level takes SS and MC out of the equation. DO NOT touch America's money to cover your a$$.
The revenue crisis...I KNOW at one time in this country it was illegal to keep American earned dollars in foreign banks. It was called tax evasion. Apparently that as changed, since the last politician we had run for POTUS does just that. He also doesn't disclose or present documents he was asked to open up to the American people. The 47% of this country that he need not consider, they won't vote for him anyway. OK...enough of that. It just absolutely blows my mind that Romney had even one vote.
Get rid of the EVERY loop hole that can ONLY be enjoyed by the wealthy. Move the cap for FICA way on up and let's start collecting tax on every eligible penny the wealthy pinch, so that those who can actually afford to pay, are paying. Get those off shore accounts back in the USA and collect that tax on the interest earned every year. Don't charge the wealthy a tax that also does not apply to the rest of us...47%? Everything should be fair to all. But the Teabaggers do not see that. Why? Are these people human?? We, the 47%, need to band together and there may not be anyone left that cares anymore.
Dnon46
SJC - No one is talking about the 2013 Budget. This post is about the 2014 FY Budget.
To 1st Read, or, Top Headlines, or, whatever the hell you call yourself: Gwaddamn! Do you employ anyone who knows how to install a new string connecting your various cans? Needs to be fixed. I wouldn't worry about the Chinese hacking you. Your deal won't stay up long enough.
Ruck Fepublicans!!
@Kevin Q#1.43: Aye Gwad!, I agree with You!
The biggest threat to our Economy is that little wimp Paul Ryan, this guy is on the wrong page !
So much for all the republican bu!!sh!t about entitlements accounting for the majority of the spending. Of the $982 billion dollars the republican House has approved for the CR, $605.2 billion is for military spending alone. To hell with education, job creation and the rest of the American people as long as the war machine is ready for the next republican president.
When will Americans tire of the war mongers who get richer from Americans dying in far from home places?
@JesseAZ:
I work at the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). I have never seen a millionaire apply for food stamps or other assistance at the office here. What I do see are hard-working people who are earning slave's wages; disabled people; elderly people; and a host of other people dressed in rags and living in poverty. So please, stop lying. The myth of the "Welfare Queen" is just that-- a myth. And yeah, I am sure that you can dig up an article about a millionaire getting food stamps somewhere, but such cases are so rare and shocking that that's why they end up on the front-page news.
I know that this is hard for you, but try very, very hard to think, just for a moment: Do you really believe that millionaires are lining up at the welfare office to collect a whopping $200 or less per month in food stamps? If you do, you're delusional.
P.S. People do not "auto-qualify" over and over. They are reviewed every six months, like clockwork, and must submit proof of everything. Otherwise, they are cut off.
The "Duke out" is mainly for show.
Obama wants to cut the budget (including SS, Medicare, etc) as much as the Republicans it's just that he's pushing for doing it in a way that looks like he doesn't so the Democrat's base won't notice that he has sold them out...again.
Here's more about it:
The Sequestration Tango: Obama and GOP Dance Through the Graveyard of the New Deal
Wed, 03/06/2013 - 00:35 — Glen Ford
The Obama regime has been remarkably successful – in pushing forward a Republican agenda. Obama, especially, has "moved with such elegance and poise, his fans forgot that he was dancing with a partner: the GOP." Together, they have starved the federal beast and forged a consensus on the inevitability of austerity. Let the gruesome-twosome take a bow.
Barack Obama's mission has always been to destroy the left wing of the Democrats in order to consummate a grand bargain – a melding – of the corporatists in both major parties. He entered national politics as a newly-minted member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which dispensed corporate campaign money to business-friendly candidates and incumbents. Ten years later, President Obama has succeeded beyond our worst fears. Black politics is in utter ruin, and the collapse of the Democratic Party's left wing is all but complete. Austerity is the order of the day, and no one is more responsible for that catastrophe than Obama, who has waged war on so-called entitlement programs since the polls closed in 2008.
He packed his presidential team with the same gang of finance capitalists that Bill Clinton had allied with to consummate his Grand Bargain of 1999: the deregulation of the banks. Obama assumed the presidency with the economy in ashes as a result of what Clinton had wrought a decade before. Immediately, Obama turned the music back up, and the Corporate Tango began anew, full of choreographed emotion, stage-managed drama and canned passion. But the dancers – Obama and the Republicans – were all going in the same, preprogrammed direction: a backwards, counter-clockwise promenade to the Right, a dance through the cemetery of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
"Obama was playing the old Republican game of 'starve the beast.'"
Obama moved with such elegance and poise, his fans forgot that he was dancing with a partner: the GOP. In 2011, following Obama's lead, the loving couple initiated their sequestration, a timed sequence of moves that would ultimately force the gutting of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with a whole host of discretionary social programs.
As is required when doing the Corporate Tango, Obama lied through his teeth, swearing during his third presidential debate that he never proposed sequestration. But Gene Sperling, the White House National Economic Council director, was so proud of the sequestration gambit, he confessed that it was all part of the grand plan to put entitlements on the block. Obama claimed he'd been looking out for the government's tax revenues. But the liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs put together a chart that showed Obama was playing the old Republican game of "starve the beast"; that he had undermined the government's ability to pay for itself by supporting the vast bulk of President Bush's tax cuts; and that the results matched Obama's 2009 projections for government spending over the next four years, almost exactly. Obama's train was running right on time.
Polls show that the Republicans are getting the blame for sequestration, but the stock market is hitting new heights now that austerity has triumphed, and that's all that really matters to the moneyed classes, whether they are wearing Republican red or Democratic blue. They have won – at least until the next economic collapse, or until a new opposition to the rule of capital can be constructed. That will not happen anywhere near the event horizon of the Democratic Party, which has followed Barack Obama into the black hole of Wall Street. Once you go Goldman Sachs, you never go back.
http://blackagendareport.com/content/sequestration-tango-obama-and-gop-dance-through-graveyard-new-deal
Obama trying to get rid of entitlements? Are you kidding: I'll make this short: He is already known, to both friend and foe alike, as "The Food Stamp President."
Which brings up a question: What's the difference between feeding caged hamsters and handing out food stamps? Answer: Caged hamsters cannot vote to increase their ration.
There is one thing here most people seem to have lost track of, The US has not had a budget pass in some 5 years, i think. The big problem is BOTH Democrats and Republicains WILL NOT work as a team, trying to make each other look bad, and in order for a budget to pass ther would need to be BOTH new taxes and Spending cuts in programs that are sacred cows and all those pet projects... Out the door.
Just imagine what it would be like if both sides were less poliarized left or right and special interest was thrown out of Washington, 300 plus miles away. What a dream.
When will the republicans stop calling SS and Medicare entitlementz? We pay into those, they are NOT entitlements.
When will democrats stop calling food stamps, welfare and the glutton of freebies entitlements? No one is entitled to any of those.
The myth of the "Welfare Queen" is just that-- a myth.
You really need to get out and about. It's pretty damn easy to find the weflare queens. Just look for the lady with the 5+ kids buying red bull and chips at the store with her EBT and then climbing into her fairly new astro van. My wife and I see them all the time here driving edges, caddies, 300s, etc.
So if you cut food stamps for the poor what will they eat?
Spoken like a true ignorant democrat. There are tons of people on food stamps that have no business being on food stamps. There are a ton of products purchased with food stamps that shouldn't be. There is quite a bit of money to save by reworking food stamps. I worked minimum wage quite a bit through out my life, even back when minimum wage was 3.35 an hour. I survived without any help from the government. But of course, I have a pride and was brought up to work for a living and never live off the system. So.... to each their own.
SEQUESTER means to HIDE.....
No matter what they decide.... WE the people are screwed.....
What else do we need to know?
Besides administration, the defense of our country is probably the only constitutional requirement of our federal government that is still in the budget.
The Republican House CR includes SPENDING INCREASES.
Probably for the military, despite the fact we are winding down two wars.
You are probably right, Eric . . . and that's the one place in the budget we really should cut; as you say, we're winding down 2(unpaid-for) wars.
The ReThuglicans keep expressing their fear that we will go the way of Greece, Spain, & other Euro-zone countries . . . but then - irrationally - they propose the very policy prescriptions that will create austerity: cut, cut, cut. That is NOT what our economy needs now! (except for the ReThiglicans who want Obama - and the rest of the country, less the 1%, to FAIL!)
What we REALLY need is to invest in America's future: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! + infrastructure, education, technology, & R & D.
This is just common sense: Public sector workers must be rehired for the economy to get back on its feet - those people spend $$, which puts more $$ into the economy, which creates MORE jobs.
More than 200 economists met recently & AGREED that this is what we need to do. We have done enough cutting for NOW; get to full employment, and the debt/deficit will largely take care of themselves. Let's move . . .
.
FORWARD! :-)
We could do a lot for the country by fixing the infrastructure and modernizing the power grid.
Do more at home, less in terms of wars.
Public sector workers must be rehired for the economy to get back on its feet - those people spend $$, which puts more $$ into the economy, which creates MORE jobs.
Wow, the liberal's answer to everything... grow the government!!!
How about cutting regulations and putting some stability in taxes and laws so that the PRIVATE sector will start hiring more? If you want economic stability, grow the private sector, not the government.
The private sector is sitting on 4 trillion dollars. Why help them. They aren't about creating jobs, they are creating wealth.
Alex-rereg:
if you want to TRY to comprehend some SIMPLE economic theory, Use The Google:
"Public-sector austerity". . .
and see what would happen to our economy if we simply rehired the people who have lost their (public sector) jobs since the ReThiglicans crashed the economy just before Pres Obama took office . . . not "grow the government" (which EVERY pres has done (including St Ronald Reagan) EVERY TIME there has been a recession . . . that''s how you GROW out of a recession . . . you cannot CUT your way out of a recession. That's like quitting your job because your credit cards are maxed - fundamentally stupid.
If you can't Use The Google, then go to the Washington Post & enter "public sector austerity" as a search term . . .
You will see a nice, easy to read chart that explains it in very simple terms.
:-)
Ryan and his Tea buddies was out to kill Obamacare from day one, take away all the health benefits hes getting and see how he feels about it than !!!
MSNBC, Stop calling Social Security, Disability, Medicare etc entitlements. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLEMENTS, they are NEEDED BENEFITS!!! Stop it now!!!
Social Security does not effect the Debt or Budget. Cut the Military to 50Billion, instead, and watch the savings flow in. How many hospitals can we build with the money that the Republicheats want to spend on two needless and worthless Virginia Class Nuclear Powered Attack Subs.
Its funny, the Monster Paul Ryan continues to act like he is the Vice President or maybe the President. He continues to live in a delusion that the people of this nation did not reject his anti-grandma anti-poor anti-disabled anti middle class draconian budget. A study of a man living a lie: The Monster Paul Ryan watched as his draconian budget was shredded by the public. the Public voted it down yet Monster Paul Ryan thinks the Public sees himself as GOD.
Citizens, I advise that you all send postal mail to Monster Paul Ryan and tell him to stop threatening Medicare Social Security etc. Then tell him to resign.
And thats my opinion.
KC_NC... I agree that anyone who believes that austerity is the right way to go had better do some serious homework. We have today a living example of just how wrong such logic is. It's a vicious cycle eating deeper and deeper at a society's fabric. The majority of the nation's economists agree that we don't need more cuts we need a balanced approach including increased revenue and spending. Small business owners are pleading for balance. Reasoning "middle-class is the nation's economic engine," they create the jobs by their demand for goods and services. The public sector workers who lost jobs have created less demand on those small businesses who supposedly create the jobs.
Those who argue that some like to spend, spend spend then answer this question...why is the income disparity the largest ever in history? Why are large corporations sitting on trillions of dollars and not investing in private sector job growth? Why per the article is "flexibility," being afforded to thwart the "Sequester," cuts supported by the majority of U.S. House Repubicans? If congress can find a way to get around the "Sequester," per the article then they can come to an agreement. Homework done links below state why austerity cuts are really bad for economic growth.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fiscal-pain-austerity-drives-up-european-unemployment-to-record-levels/5318254
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html
http://news.yahoo.com/bulgarian-govt-resigns-violent-protests-103743543.html
Magnum, you need to check facts. The amount of money spent on defense does not match what goes into entitlements. http://voxlogicae.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/budget/
You may want to call them needed benefits but they are social programs and the reality is that when they were enacted the life expectancy was much lower than it is today. When these programs were built no one expected people to be retiring and then living as long as they do now. So if Social Security was implemented when the life expectancy was 61 years and now the life expectancy is 78, or 17 years more, is it that illogical to raise the eligibility rate for some of these programs? A 65 year old person now is not the same as what a 65 year old person was back in the 1930s.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/01/the-myth-of-european-austerity
This is funny stuff KC_NC get's B$tched slapped because he doesn't know
the difference between the 2013 budget and 2014 budget and ignores
admitting SHE was wrong????
Has to be a she or an it because even Hillary would have the Nads to admit a mistake.
He gets his health benefits because of his job. What a novel idea. Maybe you should try getting one and then you'd stop whining about not getting enough benefits from my tax dollars.
We need a government that works, that SERVES our citizens!
We need a Congress that is more concerned with OUR JOBS than just keeping their own.
.
enough of the Drama Queens! let's move. . .
.
FORWARD!!! :-)
I think Obama is doing the right thing by going around the GOP leaders. Maybe a coalition can come out that will form a grand bargain and get it passed.
REALLY? What "SERVICES" do you want to see the government give the citizens and show me where in the US Constitution that those services are authorized to the federal government to give!
FORWARD!!! = BACKWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Americans spoke pretty loudly in November about the course of action they wanted.
Republicans better do more cooperating or risk losing the house in 2014.
Just as an example: Vet's who have served their country are waiting 1-2 YEARS to get the services they have EARNED - many of them are disabled; some have PTSD in need of treatment. Their claims should be processed quickly enough so they can get much needed services.
The Supreme Court has held that this type of thing is authorized by the Commerce clause.
Interesting that Boehner, when he assumed the speakership, said that before ANY bill was passed from then on, it would include a clause showing where in the Constitution it was authorized. But they stopped that after the first DAY, when they couldn't even manage to read the whole Constitution without ReThuglicans bungling it.
:-)
It wasn't too loud. It was only 51% that obama got. Not very loud and NOT any kind of mandate
True economic growth can only be garnered through PRIVATE sector growth. What Obama and the Democratic congress did with the stimulus is just throw money at the problem. Little none fact of Obama's first stimulus was that in order to get the money, you had to employ union labor. Gee, I wonder why? So I will agree we need infrastructure improvements, but the projects should be given based on multiple bids submitted and without regard to whether a contractor is union or non-union.
@sonmanvb
Obama won both of his elections by bigger margins than George ("I have political capital and I intend to use it") Bush. Hell,he didn't even win a majority of the popular vote in 2000.
Why do I think you were singing an entirely different tune in 2001 and 2005 than you are now?
A relative 1% margin is "spoke loudly" to you????
Keep in mind that 7 million of those people will not vote next time unless you have another black candidate.
"Keep in mind that 7 million of those people will not vote next time unless you have another black candidate.":
1) Sorry, John Boehner is a Republican.
2) Expect Hillary to spend some time in the tanning booth.
The democrats backed Sambo because of skin tone clear and simple.
That got him the black vote automatically. Call it racist if you want but it
was a very smart move. If there is not a black candidate the black vote will
will return to next to nothing numbers. If Connie Rice runs as a republican she
would clean Hillarys clock!
So, what your saying is that no one in DC is going to show any restraint or common sense. What's new?
A balanced budget should be a requirement. Borrowing should be prohibited. There should be term limits.
Government is not responsible enough to borrow money and they continue to show why.
It's no wonder people don't trust these guys. 11 years in Afghanistan, what a joke.
fishydigit: you said:
And we should be able to eat endless amounts of cake and icecream and gain no weight, ever. All children should be smart, talented, beautiful, and popular.
Meanwhile, in the real world, where the GOP Chairman of the House Budget Committee is still a weasel, there is the reality that the House will pass its joke budget containing not only items to end the ACA, yet still use the $716billion savings from the ACA to "balance the budget in 10 years", and end Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Of course, Washington DC is not connected to reality, it just affects it in strange, weird, unexpected ways.
Looking at the Ryan
budgetmanifesto and the sequester disaster, it reflects what the Republican party has come to. They don't even care about national defense and the military industrial complex anymore, let alone the American people. For teapublicans, it is all about protecting the money of the wealthy, the last people on Earth who need any help at all. Republicans want to do all they can to make the distribution of wealth even more lopsided. They now want to kill Medicare, Health Care and Medicaid so they can continue to give the wealthy their tax cuts and loop holes and the oil companies their corporate wellfare. They don't care a damn about the deficit. This is about leverage and getting what they can for the rich.This is typical when any entitiy goes broke. Everyone blames each other and no one accepts responsiblity for it. Medicare probably is breaking us. However, our medical delivery system (like many other parts of this society) is broken. We costs much more than any other country and do not even rank in the top ten in terms of quality of life and effectiveness. Republicans, like Ryan, want to get credit for cutting govenment programs but they do not want to be blamed for the pain it will cause. Be interesting to see how they work it out.
Private sector insurance is profit driven and unless something is done about the cost of medical care changing it will does nothing but further impoverish seniors
Could you show me an industry in the private sector that is not "profit driven"?
Health Insurance companies are limited to a very low regulated profit Margin....and aren't most private sector businesses profit-driven?
Health INSURANCE companies may be limited, but there is NO limit to the amount money that device manufacturers, drug companies, for profit hospitals, etc. may make. Even "not for profits" simply utilize the device of giving bonuses to executives, administrators and others.
The only way to reduce the cost of medical care would be to nationalize it.
I know that's socialism, but I'd rather be a healthier, wealthier socialist.
dirp, thank you for demonstrably proving what I have been saying for the past fifteen years: Show me a country where nobody dies in the street, and I will show you a country that is not free.
Congress has stolen $3,000,000,000,000 dollars from SS and now refer to the people's money as an "Entitlement"; thereby, linking those who paid into the fund with the baby mommas and professional welfare cheats. Phuck Ewe politicians.
I've read these blogs for a while now and wish to offer some advise to my fellow Americans. Don't waste your time refuting gop lies; it is an endless list, as well as arguing against their ridiculous domestic and foreign policy proposals.
These dbaggers don't live in the real world; they think being cowards, liars, stupid and ignorant are personality traits good to possess.
Scott, Interesting post. I respect your opinion and I must say that I feel the exact same way towards Liberals...all lies, all for a vote, no compassion, spend, spend, spend and absolutely no accountability.
This would be interesting if it were the least bit true. We know for a FACT that dispite GOP branding, spending has gone down under Democratic presidents since Jimmy Carter and up while Republicans hold the White House.
It's an interesting lesson about democracy. Democrats have Republicans huffing over every dollar so we usually end up with overall sound fiscal policies. While Republicans allow GOP POTUS's to spend like crazy. It's proof that our democracy works best when government is divided but both sides choose to serve the country before party.
Scott,
totally agree! the fact-free/science-denying/fear-mongering/polls-are-wrong-unless-we-like-them crawd . . . most of them are trolls, and I KNOW it's a waste of time to FEED them, but sometimes it's just sooo hard to resist . . .
It's a mistake we Progressives make all the time. The truth just seems to scare them to death . . . their Bibles don't seem to give them much comfort or security, sadly, and the guns . . . well, it doesn't seem like there is any such thing as "enough" . . . Wayne-The-Little Peter will have sold millions of guns, and made Billions for his real supports (gun manufacturers) and they will still think buying more guns will make them safer.
Like you said, they are a sad bunch . . . and I guess all we can really do is pray for them. "Conservative" = regressive; Progressives move . . . .
.
FORWARD! :-)
I feel this way about all of our government politicians. It is in their best interest to keep us divided amongst our 2 sport teams the Dems and Reps. I am done buying into all of their BS. Our government only serves themselves and the sooner people realize that, the quicker something can be done.
Scott and KC_NC.....you guys sound like real morons, but that is quite commonplace among your creed. You guys can post all you want and denigrate conservative principles. Heck, your own party doesn't even think as far left as you both do. So deal with this reality; assualt weapons ban is dead, the GOP controls the House and will do so throughout Obama's last term, Obama's approval numbers are falling, and there are more Democratic Senators in jeopardy of losing their jobs in the midterms than Republicans.
Scott, would be interesting if you posted any real facts or information to back up what you say.
MadamX you hit the nail on the head.
Arguing about who's right and wrong is a huge waste of time. All the politicians are to blame, there is no difference between the left and the right. They are all out for no one but themselves. Just look at the benefits they have bestowed upon themselves.
That's why the people need term limits. Laws requiring balanced budgets and accountability.
Right now the government is just a charade. Divide and concur, that's what they are doing.
The politicians will keep taking as long as they are allowed to do so. And, if they take every ones guns away, they'll be taking the shirt of your back.
Ryan needs us poor folks to scramble his wife's eggs hold his coffee while he sips drive his kids to school and do it all for a song. If we don't he has politicians working to starve us into doing it.
They took the middle class jobs. They took the middle class homes. The new middle class is the person holding the coffee for the drinker.
The problem is that both houses of Congress haven't figured out how to multi-task for anything other than renaming federal buildings and passing more anti-women legislation (invasion of their bodies, etc.)
Oops, this was supposed to have posted with #11, not #9, but is appropriate to both, I guess.
Since the CBO rated the Affordable Health Care bill as saving the taxpayers billions and since the GOP claims to want to save the taxpayers money, why is Eddie Munster still trying to repeal the bill? Would it have something to do with his corporate masters, the insurance companies?
The higher the debt the longer you will wait for benefits. The Republicans want out of control government spending. It is politically valuable and ruins any chance for healthcare reform.
Obama has run the debt up in 4 years as Bush did in 8. Foodstamps grew at 64% under Obama (18.4 million) while Bush had only 11 million.
All the people on foodstamps and welfare are Republican voters, get it right !!!
Seaskip - yeah right, I don't care if they are repubs or dems - they need to get a job, we need to revamp the program.
seaskip, do you have to disclose your party affiliation when applying for food stamps? Or have you personaly spoken to "All the people on foodstamps and welfare..."?
http://www.foodstamps.org/application
The ACA has several downfalls that will severely harm this country and its health care system in the long run. Not to mention the other negative effects that will come as a result of its passage.
While most Democrats made fun of and berated Republicans who stated that the ACA would end up resulting in 'Death Panels' and Middle Class Taxes during the Presidential Election. It just so happens that after the Election is over, one of the main arguers for the Democrat side, that there would be no so-called 'death panels', now says that there will be.
I'm not able to post hyperlinks, but google "Paul Krugman Death Panels" and you will find several articles and a video of a speech that he gave. Paul Krugman is a liberal economist who currently works for the New York Times. During a speech he gave, he said the following about Obamacare (or ACA):
"We're going to need more revenue, we're going to need, and probably in the end, surely in the end it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well. So again, we won't be able to pay for the kind of government, the society wwe want without some increase in taxes, not a huge one, but some increase on taxes on the middle class, maybe a value-added tax. we're going to have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So you know the snarky version I use, which is, I shouldn't even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this."
So what this means, is that if you are really of 'no value' to the government or society and are lying sick in the hospital bed, it won't matter if they have the ability to cure you or not, it'll be up to this board, that the president or the government has selected, to decide whether or not you can live or if they should just let you die. Doesn't that sound American?
Now this is rich, seriously, even a retarded progressive wouldn't make this claim. Have you looked at the inner city demographics of Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Detroit, New York City, and any number of other of these historically skewed democratic strong holds that are made up of food stamp and welfare citizens? Seaskip, you need to take a step back and actually look at what you post before you hit "Post Comment". You come off as an idiot.
Obama has spent 2 years fighting this battle in DC. The reality is, it plays right into the hands of the conservatives. We get ZERO progressive legislation while they stonewall and keep the countries focus on budgets/deficits ONLY.
There's more to legislate than the budget. Let's get some progressive immigration and gun safety policies on the books while congress spins their wheels over the budget.
That was the point in 2010! ZERO progressive legislation because they cost furture Americans money that they will have to pay back. These furture Americans we are talking about are your kinds, thier kids and so on. They will be STUCK with the bill because mommy/daddy/grandma/grandpa felt that it was owd to them and our future has to pay for it.
-Ideological purity
-Compromise as weakness
-A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
-Denying science
-Unmoved by facts
-Undeterred by new information
-Severe xenophobia
-Tribal mentality
-Intolerance of dissent
-Pathological hatred of the US government
This all you need to know. Vote the GOP OUT OF OFFICE!!
Too bad you can't PROVE any in your list. But pretty good Marxist talking points!
"...pretty good Marxist talking points...".
Gee sonmanvb,given that your posts are mostly composed of such drivel themselves and then that avatar of yours,I was always under the impression that you were a fan of pointless hyperbole.
Early on, someone suggested cutting food stamps... as easy to do. Well, my daughter- a single mother of 2, working as a medical assistant- getting no child support from the worthless POS father of her children who is not in the picture (as a matter of fact, is currently in jail- good place for him) gets a whole $130/month in food stamps. I'd like to see you try to support a family of 3 on what she makes- which is why we're having to buy her $45-$50 in groceries a week to supplement her. And you will find no soda, potato chips or cookies in her house- she and her girls eat HEALTHY foods... the girls- 3 & 5 would rather have a tomato than a cookie. We need to look at cutting tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations that enable millionaire and billionaire's the ability to pay less taxes than I do- making only $70K/year... corporations that hide their profits overseas... and now- I'm being asked- due to sequestration- to take a 20% PAYCUT???? Our government has ceased working for the best interests of the majority of this nation... they are bought and paid for by the wealthy. DISGUSTED!!!! :-(
Wes...the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% pay in income taxes. Sounds like you want the "wealthy" to pay 70% instead of the 38.5% they are paying now. So we take this extra money and do what with it? Give it to you and your daughter?
Why is the federal government handing out food stamps? This is a state issue.
Chris, the higher income earners DON"T pay their fair share of federal payroll taxes. You conveniently FAILED to mention that:
But what about the freeloaders who really are just flat out not earning enough money to have an income tax burden? Those lucky individuals who make less than $10,000 a year? They still have to pay the federal payroll tax, which amounts to 6.2% of income for everyone making up to $110,100 a year, at which point it is capped. So while the person making less than $10,000 a year is paying 6.2% of their income in federal payroll tax, a person making $22 million, like Romney did in 2010, would pay roughly 0.03% of their income. But that’s not all.
When you look at the state and local levels, factoring in income, sales, excise, and property taxes, on average the poorest 20 percent of earners pay 11 percent of their income in total state and local taxes, and the second poorest 20 percent of earners pay 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes
So to summarize, the so called “47 percent” do pay taxes, they are not freeloaders sucking off the government teat without contributing any money into the system, and many of them actually pay more in taxes than Romney and his criminal friends on Wall Street. Especially after they take advantage of all of the loopholes, deductions, and exemptions our tax code (and Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands) have to offer for wealthy people fortunate enough to hire an army of high-priced tax lawyers.
Criminal friends on Wall Street? Obama admin has not prosecuted one single Wall Street exec for their roles in the 2008 debacle. Who's friends are they?
It must really be hard to always hate the successful and want them punished!
Not that you ever will, but what would you do if you got into the 1%? Would you pay 70/80/90 % of your income to the government? What would your "fair share" be?
Let's start by not capping federal payroll taxes at $110,000. Comprendez?
The average income in the United States is $44k, which means that most Americans are in the global top 1% by income.
Brent is now comparing us to countries that PROMOTE slave labor? Hilarious.
Brent, you do realize that median income is the more appropriate measure? One person make $100,000 per year and 2 other people make $1 per year. The AVERAGE is about $33,000 per year but ONLY 1 person makes at least the average. Comprendez?
salsa...I was making a point, that our country is so great that most of us reside in the top 1% of the world. I was comparing us to EVERY country in the world, seems reasonable to me.
Also, I have a BBA in Economics and and MBA in International Business....I understand what the appropriate measures are. Any way you slice it we are blessed to live in this country. Even the poorest amongst us are typically fed and clothed.
Our Churches and private organizations feed, clothe, and shelter millions, which is a testement to the generosity of this country.
BBA and an MBA and you are comparing us to third world countries while using poor statistical measures? Let me guess, they were online degrees?
BTW Brent, they call us a DEVELOPED COUNTRY for a reason. Comparing us to developed countries is more appropriate. Apparently they didn't teach you that in undergrad or graduate school.
Salsa...the point was and is that we are the top 1% of the world. I am sorry do people in developed countries not count as part of the world anymore? What am I missing?
Also, you can poke holes in mean or median statistics as neither is a perfect measure. I have also been to numerous countries (going on 15 here shortly) and I can tell you that we have it great here. Those complaining about how bad it is really don't know any better.
Brent, if you can't figure out why top notch organizations in ANY field compare themselves to other TOP organizations and NOT the bottom dwellers, I really can't help you.
MAKING IT HURT: After closing its doors to public tours in effort to save money amid budget cuts, the White House continues to employ dozens of staffers making close to the maximum $172G — three advisers on energy and climate change alone earned six-figure salaries last year. Billions spent on Egypt and even more on other countries. No reduction in the number of Gov employees just a hiring freeze. Every cut Obama can make to HURT THE PUBLIC he does while protecting the people whose salary's we pay for. Obama the most dangerous anti America alive! NBC refuses to report the real news.
The "most dangerous anti America alive" comment makes you sound like.................a crackpot................with zero credibility.
Don't tell the Dems that. Dems love taxes and if they knew this it would be all over for the lower middle class.
Chris Rhodes Scholar = "EVEN YOUR TAG IS A LIE, I'll bet you have never met a Rhodes Scholar"
Let me prove my earlier points:
Scott and KC_NC.....you guys sound like real morons, but that is quite commonplace among your creed. = "Nonsense, do you even know what creed means"?
You guys can post all you want and denigrate conservative principles. Heck, your own party doesn't even think as far left as you both do = You help make my points, conservatives principles are what I mentioned earlier; COWARDICE, LIES, IGNORANCE & STUPIDITY...
So deal with this reality; assualt weapons ban is dead, = "COWARDICE, low lifes like you are afraid to be men unless they have guns"...
the GOP controls the House and will do so throughout Obama's last term, Obama's approval numbers are falling, and there are more Democratic Senators in jeopardy of losing their jobs in the midterms than Republicans. = "IGNORANCE from fox noise"
Enough said...
Cool, so now you can go back and prove that KC_NC doesn't have a "JD and other degrees".
Conservatives believe in helping people who need help, however we also realize there is a downside to handouts.
We as humans made in God's image were made to work. When we are not working, our inner being is unsatisfied. We do not feel complete.
Long-term social programs create dependency which leads to complacency. While we may be fed, clothed, and sheltered in our dependency; we are not happy or satisfied. Our programs should not be measure on the dollars they handout but on the number of people they get out of poverty.
In the end this is the difference between conservative and liberal perspectives on helping the poor. Conservatives believe that the money we spend should be spent to help people out of poverty. Liberals tend to believe that most poor people are victims and do not have the ability to lift themselves out of poverty, therefore we must feed and clothe them perpetually.
Conservatives believe in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Unfortunately that belief loses elections and that's why conservatives try to disenfranchise voters. Plain and simple.
salsa...The fact is that the economic policies of Obama have created more income disparity than we had before. As we centralize power in Washington and increase regulations & taxes, we end up making the rich richer. Why, you might ask?
Because only large corporations can push their influence and only large coroporations have the means to navigate the regulations and absorb the taxes. By increasing regulations and taxes, the government makes it harder and harder for new businesses to start and grow.
Obamacare's mandate for full time employees to have health coverage will end up making more part time employees. This means that the person will have to take two jobs instead of one and still not have benefits.
I and most conservatives care about the poor, as do most liberals. The difference lies in the solutions we see as viable.
Bush's financial collapse has created more income disparity than Obama's economic policies. True story.
salsa...the goundwork for the financial collapse took years to build. Yes, it was helped by some of Bush's policies, but many Dem policies led to it as well.
Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act and loosened other regulations. Clinton, Bush, and congressmen/women on both sides of the aisle pushed for more and more home ownership. Bush and the Republicans lessened the regulations on financial trades. Meanwhile, the Dems pushed banks to loan to more and more sub-prime borrowers. The rating firms had no history to base their risk grades on for such large amounts of sub-prime borrowing. Fannie and Freddie were willing to buy more and more worthless paper, knowing that they would be bailed out if everything crashed. Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, while Dems and some Repubs stopped him.
There is plenty of blame to go around, true story.
Plenty of blame to go around? Groundwork took years to build? Brent has evolved right before our eyes. It appears Obama has not been as critical a player in income inequality in his relatively 4 short years of service.
For someone who claims to have a BBA in Economics and an MBA in International Business Brent,you sure are obtuse when it comes to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. One wonders if that's intentional.
Yes, President Clinton DID,regrettably,sign that piece of idiocy into law. Perhaps Brent,you can be the first Conservative to EVER that I know of, show an ounce of intellectual honesty on this issue and tell us all who authored that bill. And to which party all three authors of the bill belonged.
Also which party voted for the bill by a unanimous 53-0 margin in the Senate? And which voted against it,by a 44-1 margin?
I know this will be hard for you,FACTS having a Liberal bias and all.
I said Clinton SIGNED it, sorry if I didn't get into the details since I would assume that most people knew who had control of congress at the time. You are 100% correct that the Republicans supported it. However, if you read my post I didn't hold punches for either side.
Both sides and both the banks who lent the money and the people who took loans they couldn't afford were at fault.
That being said, let's stop meddling in the market and install reasonable regulations, then maybe we can prevent such crashes a bit more.
Unfortunately what people don't seem to understand if that you cannot compare the federal budget to one's personal budget. Your personal budget has very little to do with the national economy and even less to do with the world economy. All federal budget decisions have to take into consideration the impact they will have not only on individuals but to the entire country's economy. That is no easy calculation. That however is why some Nobel Prize winning economists say that although the deficit is important it is not that important in the short term. So despite the alarmists trying to say the world will end as we know it if we don't cut spending right now, the fact remains that it will not.
The reality is that if we borrow money right now while interest rates are as low as they will ever be and we invest that money in infrastructure projects and rebuild our country. That will provide the jobs that will generate the taxes we need to balance the budget and at the same time fix our broken infrastructure and modernize our electric grid. It's an all-around wise investment and desperately needs to be done.
JF...actually even the liberal hero John Maynard Keynes would be angry at our continous deficits.
Our infrastructure isn't broken, we are doing just fine.
Brent you must be asleep or completely ignorant of the world around you. For goodness sake check your facts we have crumbling infrastructure all around us and an electric grid from the 50s that is subject to fail at the slightest problem. I don't see how you can make such a statement. I absolutely defend your right to your opinion but I also wish you would carefully check your facts.
Brent, get a Snicker Bar. You tend to get a bit erratic when your sugar level drops:
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the US a grade of “D” for its infrastructure on an A-F scale. The group recommended that America spend $2.2 trillion on repairs and maintenance to bring the crumbling country back up to standard.
salsa...You know the American Society of Civil Engineers would have no motive to exagerate those numbers, would they?
We certainly can and should continue to invest in our infrastructure, to say it is crumbling is hyperbole at its best. If we had a solid long term plan, I would believe this a bit more. Didn't we spend a bunch of money during the stimulus on our infrastructure? What happened?
In terms of overall infrastructure, the U.S. ranks 25th, behind nations such as Oman and Barbados, and only one spot ahead of Qatar.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf
The amount of stimulus spent on infrastructure is a drop in the bucket.
Brent prefers to compare us to third world countries in order to paint his rosy picture of how good our infrastructure is.
Actually Salsa, I did not compare our infrastructure to third world countries. It is sad that you think this country is so terrible.
ASCE lmao
If Americas engineers are so brilliant, why do they draw cartoons that have nothing to do with life of the completed projects cost effectiveness? May want to go to Europe and see what kind of highways they build(germany), or what kind of water control systems they build(netherlands, belgium, germany, denmark).
Americas engineers are a joke, especially the Corp of Engineers. I give you Katrina, or pick one of many
Re-Elect Obama 2012 says, "The amount of stimulus spent on infrastructure is a drop in the bucket."
Re-Elect Obama 2012, perhaps you can tell us where all that money in Obama's "shovel-ready jobs" stimulus in 2009 went. Seems it was something on the order of 800 Billion dollars. It sure as heck didn't go into 'infrastructure'. Sure, the amount of stimulus $ spent on infrasctructure is indeed going to be a drop in the bucket if the lion's share is being siphoned off to dogpoop enterprises like Solindra.
'Splain me, Lucy.
Chris,
Why do you make it so easy to make my points for me:
Wes...the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% pay in income taxes = FLAT OUT LIE
Sounds like you want the "wealthy" to pay 70% instead of the 38.5% they are paying now. = ANOTHER FLAT OUT LIE, The top 1% tax payers pay an average EFFECTIVE TAX RATE of 14% not 38.5%
So we take this extra money and do what with it? Give it to you and your daughter? = IGNORANCE, WHAT EXTRA MONEY...
Seriously, aren't you getting embarrassed by your utter lack of any basic facts?
Honestly, the tax code isn't even fair within the top 1%. You may have one person being taxed at the marginal rate and another at 10%. For instance McDonalds paid almost 35% taxes, while GE got a refund. That doesn't seem fair to me at all.
What we need is a flat tax with a standard deduction. This will make our tax code somewhat progressive, while eliminating the unfairness inherent in the structure today.
GE is based in China.
Brent, as I understood it from my readings, the reason GE got a refund that year (2010?) was because of billions of losses from previous recent years which were "carried over". The tax code allows for this type of 'income averaging' and 'carryover'. I do not consider that to be a "loophole", that losses may be carried over. This sort of thing applies to the "little guy" as well. For example, a $9000 capital loss in the stock market may be claimed for a $3000 deduction against that years capital gains (Schedule D) in the year of the loss, and the remaining $6000 loss carried over at the rate of $3000 per year of subsequent years aainst capital gains of those years, until it is "exhausted" two years later. What really bothers me about the GE case, is that even the conservative talk show hosts would heap scorn upon GE for "not paying any taxes" when in fact GE was 100% right and honest in their corporate behavior in this matter, IMO.
Well let's see...they want to plan a budget before Easter..isn't that nice?? While the rest of us under the sequester can't even plan for Easter, spring break or summer vacations because we will not have the money to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!! CLEAN OUT THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
agree! The people I really feel for are our lowest ranking GS employees who work hard, and don't know where their rent money is going to come from when we start giving up a day a week without pay for 22 weeks in April.
Take the White House budget down to 33% of what it is. Ban the Pentagon from letting military pilots fly Obama around. Obama can buy a coach ticket of Spirit Airlines on his own dime for a vacation.
The Republicans lose votes.The reason is what they are doing is wrong. Its easy to understand take away health benefits lose a vote.
hey both you Dems and Reps get back to work I need my SS check to be on time.....farging Iceholes...
Iraq War 10-Year Anniversary: 19 March
Done In Our Names!! After abandoning the main missions, and world help, for why we even sent the military into that region!!
Ten years after the Iraq invasion on ginned up intelligence, i.e. lies!
"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today." - Abraham Lincoln
Iraq war ends with a $4 trillion IOU: 15 December 2011 - Veterans’ health care costs to rise sharply over the next 40 years
“We are dealing with veterans, not procedures—with their problems, not ours.” —General Omar Bradley, First Administrator of the Veterans Administration
How does a Country HONOR It's Fallen, by Their Own 'Sacrifice' in Taking Care of the Brothers and Sisters They Served With!!
No Revenues = Still No Sacrifice = That's Called 'Support' For The Troops = DeJa-Vu all over again
Military and Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, Administration and it's Cabinet, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011", and plenty more of similar since Joyce spoke and also will continue, as will the obstruction as the tepubs continue seeking to privatize the Veterans Administration, the peoples responsibility to those that serve them!
USN All Shore '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In Country '70-'71
Jim S
I proudly served in Iraq and am happy that we liberated that country. Taxes rates more or less don't mean more revenue. Sorry it just isn't that simple.
Conservatives whine about our deficit and then in the next breath say they supported a war in Iraq that was not payed for and based upon false intel.