E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Ken Strickland
As a deadline looms for lawmakers to reach a bipartisan spending agreement or face a temporary government shutdown, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has offered up the one possible solution that House Speaker John Boehner had already promised to shoot down.
AP
FILE-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill last week.
Reid formally announced on Tuesday that he plans to bring a short term spending bill, often called a "continuing resolution" or "CR", to the floor next week to prevent a government shutdown. But the stop-gap measure he plans to offer is exactly what Congressional Republicans have vowed to reject: a bill that funds the government for 30 days at existing levels, with no further spending cuts.
That’s a proposal that Boehner nixed last week. “When we say we're going to cut spending -- read my lips -- we're going to cut spending,” he said at a news conference on Thursday. "I am not going to move any kind of short-term CR at current levels.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell echoed Boehner’s sentiment in a statement today.
"Washington Democrats can't find a single dime of federal spending to cut, insisting on the status quo, even for a short-term spending bill,” McConnell said. “But keeping bloated spending levels in place and, predictably, proposing even more tax increases, is simply unacceptable."
But Democrats say their bill will cut spending when measured against the budget President Obama submitted--but never enacted--for the 2011 fiscal year. This is the same benchmark Republicans used with laying out their plan late last year to cut $100-billion worth of spending.
"This bill will include the $41 billion in budget cuts that Democrats and Republicans agreed to in December, and will keep the government running for 30 days while both sides can negotiate a common-sense, long-term solution," Reid said in a written statement.
The Senate Majority Leader also assigned his chief of staff to begin negotiations with his counterpart in Boehner's office on a long term spending bill that would fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year, ending in October.
Last week the House passed a long-term bill that produced $60-billion in spending cuts, but Senate Democrats deemed it dead before arrival.
*** UPDATE *** In a conference call with reporters, Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer further turned up the rhetorical heat on Boehner. Schumer said Boehner is "under intense pressure from the right wing" of his party to force a government shutdown.
"He's being mislead and pushed around by his conservative freshmen who don't remember what happened in [a previous government shutdown in] 1995," Schumer said. "And not only don't fear a government shutdown, but they actually say they welcome one."
But Reid and Schumer didn't directly answer a key question: would they accept anything other than what Senate Democrats are proposing -- a stop-gap measure that funds the government at current levels?
"The answer is we believe there should be a conversation held between the Republicans and the Democrats on how we're going to fund the government for the rest of the year. And, I repeat, we can't do it talking through you folks," Reid. "We want to sit down and talk to them."
Leave a Comment:
Stick to your guns Bohner. We will never get any reduction in spending placating the democrats. Shut down government if necessary. We need responsible spending again so do whatever is necessary to get us there.
LOL--And Boehner's cuts are so wimpy, they don't do anything to fix the budget. He's to afraid to attack what will really cut the budget: Defense, Medicare, and SS.
you've got to love those republicans !!! they get their tax cut for the rich increasing the budget deficit by 400 billion dollars and then they bitch and moan about deficit spending by the government !!! what the hell ???
LOL... you gottas love the liberal dems!. They don't ever seem to realize that this is not monopoly money that Harry and Barry are playing with.
The 2009 Budget balloon from a 400 billion deficit (which candidate Obama condemned to a 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficit in just 9 months of office. Now we are operating at a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010 which Harry Reid wants to extend to 2011! What ever happened to candidate Obama's pledge to cut the budget deficit in half?
Guess they went the same way as all the rest of his vows.
BTW... Is GITMO closed yet?
Um...the first budget under Obama was fixed by Bush before him. Obama has very little control over what had already been passed. Also, Obama, for the first time, actually included the costs of the wars in his budget, unlike Bush.
By the way, Repubs, where are those jobs you promised?
dear navy
your hero bush w. never figured it out either !!! name one spending bill that W vetoed. never mind, because he NEVER VETOED ANY BILL PASSED BY HIS REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS on the way to his 1.3 trillion dollar deficit !!!
Uhhmm the budget Bush signed was with a 400 billion deficit. After Barry took office it ballooned to 1.5 trillion for the year. That was because of increased pending by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They did not pass a budget for 2010 (why put up with all the angst of upset voters) so they continued spending. According to the CBO that will close out at about 1.6 trillion in deficit for this year.
Now the DEMS are saying they are going to be responsible in spending ( I know, I rolled on the floor laughing at it to) so they are going to "freeze spending" at the current level ( in other words another 1.6 trillion in debt). That is Harry Reid's idea of negotiating. What a joke
BTW, where are the 6 million jobs Obama was going to create with his stimulus bill?
You first Butnik.
Yea navyvet, and prior to Obama took office, Bush had created a department of homeland security, 2 wars, medicare part d, and slashed government revenue with his tax cuts, and passed no surtaxes to pay for ANY of what he signed off on, as well as the worst economy since the great depression, Bush also inherited surpluses and turned them to deficits within a few months. Hence Obama gets handed a ticking timebomb of a fiscal mess.
You have to be a complete retard to actually think that McCain would of magically balanced the budget overnight with more tax cuts and no offset in spending cuts in major programs like defense (Imagine that, McCain cutting into our $500+ billion DoD budget in the name of fiscal responsibility) or tax increases elsewhere.
Your a partisan hack, the last Republican to significantly pay down the debt was Eisenhower which was more than FIFTY YEARS AGO
That is why Republicans can not agree with Democrats, democrats are realists and Repubs are ideologues. Democrats base their decisions off of facts, unlike Republicans.
James-546734
That is why Republicans can not agree with Democrats, democrats are realists and Repubs are ideologues. Democrats base their decisions off of facts, unlike Republicans.
What you said make me think that republicans are cub fans and democrats are sox fans. republicans are 100 year loosers and democrats are always in the ball game.
republicans are baseball fans and democrats are football fans.
Republicans don't share there wealth and democrats share there money with the players.
navyvet98
Uhhmm the budget Bush signed was with a 400 billion deficit. After Barry took office it ballooned to 1.5 trillion for the year.
Fiscal Year/U.S. Government Budget (Spending)/Deficit or Surplus
2000: $1.79 trillion/$236.2 billion surplus
2001: $1.86 trillion/$128.2 billion surplus
2002: $2.01 trillion/$158.8 billion deficit
2003: $2.16 trillion/$377.6 billion deficit
2004: $2.29 trillion/$412.7 billion deficit
2005: $2.47 trillion/$318.3 billion deficit
2006: $2.66 trillion/$248.2 billion deficit
2007: $2.73 trillion/$160.7 billion deficit
2008: $2.98 trillion/$458.6 billion deficit
2009: $3.51 trillion/$1.4 trillion deficit
2010: $3.46 trillion/$1.3 trillion deficit
2011: $3.82 trillion/$1.6 trillion deficit
2012: $3.73 trillion/$1.1 trillion deficit
if we include the stimulas as well as putting the 2 wars ON the books for 2009 the deficts increased to 1.4 trillion. Barry only changed Bushs weird accounting methods. the 1.4 trillion also includes the medicade part D that is averaging 400 billion per year for 7 years that was no funded.
but what you ignore and why i put this up here is, what the hell happen to the surplus and from 2007 to 2008 why the hell did the deficts increase by 300 billion. say what you want, President Obama increased the deficts, but if bush had not Pissed the surplus away, as soon as he got in to office we would not be having this arguement.
Maybe it would be a good thing to shut down the government, maybe we should make it premanant.
Then, who's going to send you your welfare check?
navy: Trying to rationalize with liberals is very difficult at best. As long as it is somebody elses money let's spend the heck out of it. Being Republican or Democrat does not have anything to do with turning this around. It is not really important how we got here. We are here. So if any liberal/progressive can explain to me how we get out of this by not cutting spending, I'm all ears.
The problem is that in a recession, no one is spending--so the government has to to keep the economy afloat. After the recession is over, you can cut spending--but it has to be focused on what really affects the budget--Medicare, Defense, and SS. Neither budget on the table even touches those things.
The huge problem is the deficit was enlarged by the tax cut for the rich that was extended.
Ending heating subsidies for poor people isn't going to fix the budget... not even close.
Why don't you guys take a pay cut, like everyone else in the country?
100% True. The GOP/TP does not want to compromise wither at the State of Federal level. They are going to push this to the hilt until something bad happens and then they will blame President Obama. This has been their agenda all along. To tank the Middle Class and blame our President.
"Your" President and his Democratic Congress had plenty of time to pass a budget and they blew it.
Why would anyone want to "tank the Middle Class"? It doesn't make any sense. If they "tank the middle class" they will lose every following election and be completely removed from power. I'm also curious who you think represents you...none of our elected officials are truly part of the middle class. They are all wealthy and guaranteed their salaries for life.
Please think a little harder from the perspective of your oppenent.
Yet giving huge tax breaks to the rich moves us towards killing the middle class...
dear mr spock
you've hit the nail on the head !!! all you have to do is look at the state of Wisconsin !!! the people there swallowed the the GOP/TP propaganda "hook, line and sinker" !!! now they're fighting for their financial lives !!! their governor being the republican that he is says "no negotiating" !!! it's "my way or the highway" !!! sound familiar ??? however, in the end Wisconsinites have no one else to blame but themselves !!! they voted for these republicans !!!
Bart,
What is the deference between "huge tax breaks" and a "decreased tax burden"? The rich pay nearly all of the taxes in America even after they work every known loophole. Please attempt to see things from the other side. Blind hate just makes us look stupid and the extreme left talking points alienate the middle.
I am writing this as an independent with democratic leanings although I disagree with many of the positions the democrats have taken in recent years. Is this political maneuvering by both sides? Yes. Are both sides willing to see how blinks first at the cost of many? Yes. However, this type of negotiation - regardless of what any one citizen may think - is what is at the very core of the most successful organized government structure in history. Many want to focus on the constant political food fight that occurs in DC on a regular basis. Just try living here like me. It's non-stop. However, the goal of all of this is to achieve some net positive for society as a whole. That is, after all, the role of government. People tend to forget that the federal government - fundamentally speaking - is in the business of mitigating risk for its citizens. That risk could entail foreign and domestic threats, financial, militarily, health, or otherwise. That is why any action (or inaction) by our elected leaders - large or small, historic or mundane, politically advantageous or not - take longer than we'd like. Many in our society want to compare the way we run our homes to what government should do. What people fail to realize is that the impacted parties by government action is exponentially larger than those of a family. It's not that easy a comparison. It is true that every action (or inaction) by our elected leaders can and will have an impact on some portion of our society. It would be the equivalent of making family decisions when you have 40 kids, all of which have different aspirations, educations, goals, and preferences.
So what does all this mean? Here is what I think. Government has a responsibility to its citizens. We, citizens, must understand and respect that our likes and dislikes vary as much as our great country's ethnicity. Therefore, leaders are merely ensuring that all voices are heard. The more diverse we become, the longer decisions take and the more heated the debate is.
Do our political leaders take things too far on occasion? Yes. However, I'd much rather live in a country where civic debate - even if it leads to a stalemate - is valued and appreciated rather than a country where voices are silenced and muted. Just look at what is happening in the middle east. Those people are willing to die for what we simply mock - a chance to be represented by our leaders.
This is our elected Democrats saying "no" to compromise. A stop gap resolution ensures that the spending remains at the Democrat approved level. I don't think the Republican offer was unreasonable, so I don't know for what we are fighting. They only want to cut $0.06 Trillion out of the $1.6 Trillion deficit with over $3 Trillion in annual spending. The right wing ideal would be a $1.6 trillion cut, so the "Party of No" seems to have compromised whether they will admit it or not and the party of "Hope and Change" is fighting tooth and nail for neither right now. I'm simply ashamed, the Democrats will lose the white house if they keep this up.
So what would you cut? The Repubs are afraid to touch Defense, Medicare, and SS--the main parts of the budget. Cutting heating aid to the poor isn't going to fix the budget...
Have you read the resolution to know what they want to cut? Would you say yes to something before you knew what it was and the comprehensive impact it would to America long term? Cuts have consequences. No...I assume you are smart and know you don't blindly say yes to something just to end a disagreement. The reasonable thing to do is take another 30 days to figure it all out. However, long-term, we do need to find a compromise to get things moving. Compromise is the right thing here.
The Republicans are offering up military spending as well. Of note is cutting the secondary engine design for the next generation fighter. We have to cut from across the board. I have read through the cuts proposed for this year and the $0.06 T is rather common sense stuff. For example, they want to cut some funding from global warming studies. This may be because they don't believe in it, but the truth is that we should be cutting it since we put up huge $$$$ satellites that can do the work of an army on the ground in collecting data.
Almost everyone on this thead is thoroughly brain-washed. It's not your govenrnent that is the issue comprehensively. I mean...the structure has been watered down, but it has been purposely watered down so one specific entity can control most politician's every move and get the uneducated and scared to fight on their behalf. This entity is known as a Corporation. You are all brainwashed into thinking your government is the enemy. The enemy are Corporate greedy institutions that want to suck up as much wealth from the middle class. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton helped them devastate the poor...the only thing left is the rest of us...the middle class. Fight to regulate profits and ensure the middle class can have more. WE are the engine of this economy. A decrease or increase of 1-3% year over year is not killing us. Use your brain! It's the increase in cost of basic essentials compared to your income - gas, water, security, homes that increased year over year, decade over decade. Pay attention because capitalism is a lie. Cable hasn't decreased since it's deregulation. Cars keep getting more expensive compared to salaries. Most of Americans are dumb enough to pay an arm and leg for a stupid I-Phone twice a year but get upset when taxes are raised $150 compared to the previous year. Corporate greed and individual responsibility is what is killing Ameican. Not the government directly. Stop arguing and calling names, read books on economics and the middle classes impact to the success of this country, learn what really happens when Corporations get to make decisions in our ecosystem without accountability...learn what is really happening is all I am saying. Then...maybe then...the people will be able to re-take our government by actually voting for candidates who truly understand and begin pushing reform to drive more accountability to Wall Street and Corporations. And also pushes to you and I what we need to do on our side as individuals. This Nation is lost.
Brother, I am very well paid by evil corporations and I'm from a family that had nothing. There will always need to be regulations that internalize cost externalities. Both sides of the political spectrum should agree on this.
I am also well paid by evil corporations. :) Ath the same time I think in terms of the best interests of my community, family and the nation as a whole. It is becoming apparent most in this country are just looking out for themselves. I wish you well.
.
The ONLY reason the government needs to spend is because the private sector CAN'T do something:
Medicare and Social Security had to be created because the private sector didn't care about the elderly. The programs for the poor that the Repubs are trying to cut are because the private sector won't deal with the poor.
These are ALL necessary, unless you happen to be a rich guy...and then you just don't care.
Bart,
I'm with you, we need to step in and take care of those that the private sector won't. The only problem is we can't do so with borrowed money. Maximize long term tax revenues and spend all excess money on helping those in need, but they need to balance the budget.
If Reid holds the course, and Congress goes along, we could go through the entire year with continued, bloated government. Cutting federal spending is critical. The Republicans are correct in not allowing what is basically "business as usual" to continue indefinitely. Action to reduce the budget is needed to get a handle on the deficit. Reid and the democrats are just attempting an end run.
Yet, the Repubs just keep hacking away at that tiny 12% of the budget--government. Even they are afraid to touch those monsters Medicare, Defense, and Social Security.
Don't accuse the Democrats of not compromising: the American people know the truth after watching the Repubs say NO to everything Democrats proposed (even if the ideas were Republican in the first place!).
Why should Democrats have to "compromise" when the Repubs have voted for the extreme in the house budget bill--completely defunding programs for the poor and about family planning--while giving huge tax payers to their rich buddies.
How do you compromise with complete selfishness?
So your arguement is that the Democrats should go tit for tat with the Republicans in a battle to secure a position as the most immature political body? Please stop representing Democrats!!!
The one thing that stands out to me is why is the politicians pay on the chop block that should be number one.
They get to vote on their pay! Man do I wish I had that privilege.
I fear we'd have to go all Tea party before they voted to decrease their pay and what a mess that bunch would make.
Mr. Boeher,
Read my lips, If you shut down the government, your party will be toast in 2012.
Open your eyes, both parties are making moves to shut the Government down.
JOB1, If keep the government operating is so important, then why did Harry and the Democrats go on vacation this week?
Boehner is going to be toast by the time the New York Times and the other media gets through with him concerning his adulterous affairs. Hey, isn't he the one that force Lee, the New York Rep Rep to resign??
Man, are we progressives in for a joy ride with this congress! !
Given Clinton's and Obama's adulterous affairs did not hurt them I think Boehner will be fine just like McCain after the NYT had to retract its story about him.
You don't really believe in what you read in the NYT and other grocery store check mags do you?
After all, was it not revealed that the Senior Editor?Publisher at the NYT was boiking Caroline Kennedy?
or that Mrs McCain was boinking Magic Johnson; or that Sarah Palin was boinking David Letterman; or that Michelle Bachmann was boinking Snooki! or that...etc., etc., etc.
Navy,
You're wrong, only cool guys can get away with affairs. Sure Clinton got a BJ in the oval office from an intern, but he could play the saxophone....saxophone.... Boehner isn't a cool guy because he cries openly in public. I haven't heard about Obama or McCain affairs, but let me say now they could get away with it. Obama is the first African-American president (literally half African and half American), which is pretty cool. McCain was tortured for this country, which makes him a cool tough guy.
In his book Obama spook of a "relationship outside his marriage" which almost destroyed his marriage. To his credit, he was open about it and spoke of how the pending loss "re- defined how much he valued his family and fortunately they were able to recover.
Clinton had several recorded affairs but I think everyone agrees that his relationship with Hillary is now based solely on politics and power.
During the 2008 campaign the NYT published a story that MccCain had an affair with one of his campaign managers. The story was quickly proven false but the NYT did not apologize they only retracted.
To date, "the Boehner affair" is purely internet myth. No article has been published, that I am aware of, that he has had an affair.
After Spitzer, Edwards, Sanford, Clinton, Vitter et. al, I think the American Voters would be amazed to find one politician who has been faithful.
In one manner or another they have all screwed the American people.
And CelebTV has been touting its Boehner "going down" video.
navy and Don,
Interesting information. I'd fully expect Boehner to resign if the allegations are proven true. It is expected from a party that runs on the platform of morals.
Reported by the group that consistently discounts truth?
The Boehner led House bill is a sham-wow ad, put 400 amendments in piñata, whip up every divisive force you can muster, appease every support group you can remember, and earn ever dime of campaign donation possible. Take the spoils and then NOT carry out the Republican plan to over throw the government?
We all hope that this stupidity will result in a better nation; we may also hope that someone will save us from this result; if not Republicans are going to need a lot more than “individual responsibility” to run a Nation?
It should be recognized that none of the above is acceptable, the public will not stand for a government shutdown any more that they will stand for endless nonsense budgetary proposals.
I think the November elections showed the American people will not stand for anymore wild spending and reckless economic deals. Regardless of party.
The government shutdown that has been ignored was the one during Jimmy Carter's years. With a super-majority in the house and the senate the dems could not pass their own budget bill.
I had just joined the navy six months before and remember going without pay for ninety days. Fortunately for me I was single and lived on base. For those that had a family it was a nightmare.
Creditors understood but grocery stores didn't.
RichMJones, now there is a funny libbie analogy - a shamwow commercial. Put $1T in the pinata and what do you really recieve - ObamaCare, with another few100 billion due in a year.
With President Barry and the members of his Spending Party that controlled the House and Senate what else did they do during the past two years? Dictate legislation for I won the election, spend, borrow, spend, spend, print money, spend, spend, spend.
The Democratic motto: During the good times, spend the revenues. During the bad times, spend the revenue. When the revenues are bad, borrow. When you can;'t borrow anymore, print.
And safecracker, the new "hot" one that's making the rounds:
P. T. Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute - ergo the Tea Party dudes must be Koch suckers! ! 1
Hope the pun didn't make you soros.
Now that was funny......but are you libbies the ones that have a Koch fixation? And no, your pun didn't make me soros.
It always amazes me that the baggers and birthers and many in the GOP rail against the union wages, like those in WI, when most of the employees fighting to keep their rights have Masters degrees, police, firefighters, teachers, etc., and they scream about the deficit. But when Bush and the GOP was in charge and drove the country into a ditch, bankrupt us basically, yet gave the uber wealthy tax cuts (which they still fight to the death for) the trolls that support them have no problem saying now it's all about the deficit. OK, we have a deficit and yet it doesn't bother any of you that instead of telling the top 2% to pay their fair share of taxes, and I guess you'd be surprised to know that most of the corporations in this country paid less in taxes last year then the average working stiff! But you still go blindly along supporting all this blather. Only stupid people vote against their own best interest. Kind of like running into the wall with your head and you keep doing it even though it hurts because some wealthy nut bag like Beck or Rush tells you to. Go ahead shut the Government down, and all those people receiving military checks or social security checks won't receive their payments. That's OK with the nutbags on the right, even thought you wave the flag and say you support the troops, that's apparenlty only lip service.
The budget is being balanced on the backs of the middle class and working families, but touch those tax cuts for the wealthy, nope cannot be done, it's not fair to make them pay, why, well because they are the base of the GOP, the rest are just puppets.
You can wait him out cocktail hour..it starts at 330 ...then ask again but dont get this hormonal bozo crying !
Maybe Senator Reid forgot that there is already a spending bill for the Senate to consider first. Also, $$$ legislation begins in the House, not the Senate, so I'd reject a CR coming out of the Senate on just Constitutional grounds. If Senator Reid was in such a hurry to get a $$ bill done, he wouldn't have the Senate on Recess this week. If the government does shut down, blame falls squarely on the Democrats. They are the ones who failed in their Constitutional duty last year to pass funding for the government. THEY controllee both Houses of Congress & could have just as well forced any/all spending bills thru. They didn't! Best we can do is shut the government down! A government not working is better than the crap we have now.
Let the right-wingers have their way for the next 90 days. With that much rope they should pretty well destroy their own future as a political force in this country.
If not, they will nickel and dime us into a hole we will never get out of, and we are very close to that edge now.
These clowns haven't a clue how economies work. They refuse to look at the last 30 years of their own policies and how they have brought this country close to bankruptcy. And not one of them is willing to admit it is GOP policy that has caused this mess.
Lesson 1: If you do not have the budgetary strength to pay the bills you have two options - cut spending or increase taxes. If the cause of all these problems are 30-years worth of misguided and ill-thought tax cuts that had a reverse effect than what was intended then at least part of the solution is to roll back the bad policies, meaning the tax cuts.
Lesson 2: We have NOT avoided a depression, especially if the policies that brought us close to one do not change. We have simply postponed the next depression until more bad policies are enacted like the right-wingers are trying to do today. Putting back the regulation safety net Gingrich's Contract On America removed and allowed the financial collapse would be a real good idea, too, know that we know by test of fire those regulations work when properly administered.
Lesson 3: Cutting government spending and jobs does NOT stimulate and economy trying to recover from the worst recession in United States history. On the contrary, it will prolong or deepen and already bad economic situation.
Right-wing politicians and policy makers would know this stuff if they didn't get all their data - bad data at that - from the right-wing propaganda and disinformation machine. Hate and fear do not make for good policy regardless of what Limbaugh tells you and fantasy facts like those spun by News Corp have contributed hevaily to the McConnell/Boehner obstruction campaigns of the last four years, and now the bad policy of killing affordable health care. Who wins from that one other than the BIG BUSINESS insurance companies.
I can't figure out who Boehner reall works for - News Corp or the insurance lobbyists.
Well its obvious you work for George Soros and MSNBC. Nancy Pelosi is regarded as the five trillion dollar woman. That is because of one simple fact. In her four gears of budget control our national debt has increased by five trillion dollars. Unlike the mythical character "The Bionic Woman", we have nothing to show for all of her spending sprees.
Political,
I'd like to join you in sputtering anti-republican propaganda, but I've run the deficit statistics on the basis of political affiliation of both the President and House with and without lag effects...and well...the democrats are pretty squarely responsible for the national debt. If only we could push an agenda and balance a budget than there wouldn't be a Republican party.
Do a little research on the history of federal government spending vs revenues over the last 50 years. It didn't start with Bush.
Thanks Nevada.
Every time I look at Harry Reid's prunish face I cannot help but laugh at the thought that his biggest political adviser is Lady Gaga. This is the guy that wants to outlaw prostitution in his own state but has no problem playing with the biggest wh@res and prostitutes in the world. The U.S. congress!!
Harry Reid has been reelected for the last time, and unfortunately, we still have him in his position for some time. But, we can limit his ability to reach out to the public by continuing to make him the fool for the uberleft.
Please be nice to the hookers when you compare them to the U.S. Congress. Hookers provide a service for a fee, with no intent for future favors. The Congressman, however, wants your money, wants you to get, well, you know, then wants your money again.
Tell me again how not cutting any spending whatsoever is a compromise by Democrats? Compromise means you give up something you want (much like a sacrifice) but the Democrats don't want to do that. Boehner has already stated what he wants...he wants *some* spending cuts but the Democrats don't want to give up *any* spending cuts. Now, tell me again who is willing to compromise when we have someone (republican) who wants to cut some spending and someone else (democrat) who doesn't want any spending cuts? Does Reid forget that many Democrats were ousted a couple months ago because his party was spending too much without any visible benefit?
Spending, spending, spending has been the rule for 2 years now and we have not seen any of the promised benefits. It is safe to say the Democrats don't know how to run the country, except into the ground. If your family is in debt, do you keep spending? NO! So why is it okay for Democrats to do so? Sacrifices *have* to be made. The gov't can't be all things to all people, especially all the time. Reid needs to remember the country didn't have this budget 10 years ago and we were okay so that means we don't need it all now. The keyword to remember is the Democrats just *want* this budget because they want these special programs. But now is a bad time to spend more on things that are just wants.