Who were the five DINOs that voted for it?

I think we need to primary them.

So the ball is in Boehner's court. My bet is he will drop the ball or miss it entirely.

The McConnell--Reid plan B is waiting in the wings.

Or dodge it completely Ron... ;o)

Boehner will punt because he can't control the Tea-Party monster the republicans created... Punt, blame the president, yada yada yada... They should call the Tea Party plan: The Punt Pass and Kick proposal. Punt on the middle class, give the rich a pass and kick seniors and poor people...

Doesn't everyone just LOVE a good sports metaphor?

What we need is a volley. What we're likely to get is a very lame back-swing, followed by some John McEnroe-like accusations tossed in the direction of the line judge -- some guy named Obama -- who will inevitably rule the shot out of bounds.

Anna Molly:

I see a Democrat won by 2-1 in yesterday's election. Getting to be about time for another report from the Heartland. AKA Wisconsin. But no sports metaphors. Except... you've got the ball, now run with it.

The only good thing that will come of this mess, is those Tea Bagger- Brown Shirts will be gone in 2012.

Question: If Harry and Barry have agreed on a plan, why don't they just pass it in the Senate with Barry's strong public endorsement and send it over to the House?

Answer: Because the Dems are just playing politics and hoping the Republican's get blamed for it, and the good of the country be damned.

Well, I guess that blows the "only adult in the room" Dem myth out of the water.

Ron:

Except... you've got the ball, now run with it.

LoL I'll keep that in mind, my friend. Now if only I could find the right court. Got map?

In the meantime, here's an article about Dave Hansen's victory that also mentions the other two primary races that were held yesterday.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_91dfebd6-b23c-11e0-9ab2-001cc4c03286.html

Job1:

those Tea Bagger- Brown Shirts will be gone in 2012.

Love you, Job1, but maybe we could find a little less inflammatory term to apply to the Tea-Partiers. Somehow this job seems to have devolved on me, so please help me out here.

One of the things that often causes some confusion here is the failure of various visitors to understand the basic rules by which the government operates. In this case, it's the Constitution itself, which mandates that spending and tax bills originate in the House of Representatives. Of course the conservatives have the Constitution they love so dearly crushed tightly over their hearts - which makes reading the document a tad difficult. We must make allowances, don't y'know.

So anyhow, if the "Gang of Six" proposal is to go anywhere it has to begin its path toward progress in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately not a one of that "Gang" serves in the House.

Interestingly, if the McConnell "Plan B" measure were to come up without any riders or passages either raising taxes or affecting authorized Federal spending, it could be adopted first in the Senate and then shipped to the House. The McConnell proposal is essentially a parliamentary measure rather than a spending or taxing bill.

Of course, in the House, any number of amendments - and many could be extremely bizarre - might be attached that do affect spending and revenues. And betcha they will include more crap from the Tea Party platform, intended to make the McConnell plan unworkable and unreasonable, too.

So the Tea Party has a new slogan, now: Goodbye, cruel world .....

Judge Joe:

Well, I guess that blows the "only adult in the room" Dem myth out of the water.

Funny. I thought you did that the other day. Those same old myths just seem to keep coming back, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes. LoL

By the way, do YOU know where the right court is? I can't seem to find it.

JohnA:

So the Tea Party has a new slogan, now: Goodbye, cruel world .....

LoL Just let me know when one of the Tea-Partiers actually joins the army.

Do you know where the right court is?

John A

Thanks for the clear and articulate explanation of the legislative process.

AM -

Oh, yeah, I do. Good post. These RWNJs blather on offering only insult in place of anything substantive to contribute to the conversation. You're doing a great job, kiddo!

Amy, you're most welcome. Isn't it funny how every few days someone has to woodshed these characters with essentially the same information? If IQ is a measurement of the capacity to learn, then the righties' individual, and collective, IQ may actually be a negative number.

Nice job calling out job1 AM.

See I told you - you are responsible for your side.

Oh and the right court is any court that gives me the rulings I want. Sadly I am often really good at finding the wrong court.

There is also a court in LA, South Central West, called "the bank." It is always the right court if you are looking to file a big personal injury claim.

So that's the right court as per the plaintiff's bar up there.

Oh John there you go calling us conservative stupid.

Do you feel better? Superior?

It's cool - I'm totally sure you are superior to all of us anyway.

Me, I just measure myself against others by height. A nice and objectively verifiable measure.

Stupid is as stupid does, Spanky. Post 1.14 certainly seems to apply all too often in your case and that of some others.

And I just DARE you to use that height comparison with the little old 4'9" Black grandma I see every day at the bus station herding her grandkids around - man, she'd eat BOTH of us for lunch and spit out the bone splinters if anyone dared suggest short was inferior. See what I mean? You're probably old enough to remember the furor over that song, "Short People." The capacity to learn, man ...

Hi Anna,

No problem. Sometimes it hard to keep my cool when these people 10% show a complete lack of common sense :-)

John A. : And I just DARE you to use that height comparison with the little old 4'9" Black grandma I see every day at the bus station

Gee John A, what does her being black have anything to do with her height?

John A: "they got no reason, no reason to live." Bye the way, my granny was 4' 10"

WCA - funny in such a sad way. John might jhave a big brain, but he sure isn't color blind.

Idiots, of course I'm not color blind. That Black grandma is an absolutely wonderful, effective, and ferocious person I see every day. She is a fine example of many Black women who have taken responsibility in their homes - just read some of the Alex Delaware novels for another depiction. Go peddle your poop someplace else.

Sometimes it hard to keep my cool when these people 10% show a complete lack of common sense :-)

You're being FAR to generous Job1! lol

Sure John A., it's just that you see the color of skin as a differentiation in a persons abilities. Seems that since Grandma was black, it was even cooler to you.

Me, not so much. I'm more a content of character guy.

Yep John - because simply noting the 4' 11" grandma would not have highlighted how progressive and wonderful you are. You had to make sure to toss in that she was black.

Dude, that just sad. Sad like your attempts to belittle those who disagree with you politically by blanketly asserting they have a low intelligence.

It's ok John, we get it. Especially the part where we are peddling poop, but not you. Oh no, not you John. Because after all you have told us you are vastly superior to engage in that type of behavior, right John? Sure you are.

Largely overlooked in today's news flow, was a Jay Carney remark that may be more revealing than he or his boss intended.

During the regular news briefing ABC News' Jake Tapper asked Carney, with all this Obama talk about the minuses of other peoples' debt reduction plans, where's Obama's plan?

Carney's stunning reply: Leadership is not proposing a plan. If he did, it likely would be voted down.

Here's that full exchange:

Q: The House is passing something that many observers feel would never pass the Senate and the President has said he would veto. The Senate is passing -- the McConnell-Reid plan, it’s not clear that that could pass the House. The Gang of Seven plan, it’s not clear that that could pass the House. Would this not be an opportune time for a President to lead and say, “This specifically....” --

MR. CARNEY: Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down, and likely voted down, because it is -- look, you know how this town works and how Congress works. If an individual, whether a Democrat or Republic leader, steps forward and says, “This is my plan and solely my plan,” it makes it a lot harder for that plan to be the basis for a bipartisan compromise.

So, as we near what he says is a looming crisis to believe in two weeks from today, don't look for this leader of the United States to be doing anything more than react to the ideas of others. What else did you expect from the guy that voted "Present".

Carney's stunning reply: Leadership is not proposing a plan. If he did, it likely would be voted down.

The truth stings don't it? lol

Thanks for sharing...

Name ONE thing President Obama has proposed that wasn't 'shot down' by the right wing nut jobs?

I mean the whole debt commission debacle only proved Teapubican'ts can indeed twist themselves into a human pretzle...

It's alright, Americans are beginning to see through the tea bagger charade!

John A.

If the McConnell plan is a parlimentary move and originates and if it passes in the Senate, can the House Speaker simply refuse to bring a similiar measure to vote in the house? Or could Boehner allow amendments that make house legislation a spending bill and therefore prempt the Senate from passing their parliamentary measure? It appears as if the nation can still be held captive to the whims of John Boehner.

One of the things that often causes some confusion here is the failure of various visitors to understand the basic rules by which the government operates. In this case, it's the Constitution itself, which mandates that spending and tax bills originate in the House of Representatives.

________________________________________________

John A: You sound like you consider yourself an expert on this issue. Could you please point me to the Article and Section of the Constitution that mandates spending bills originate in the House? My copy only seems to show revenue (tax) bills being mandated to originate in the House in Article 1 Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Thanks in advance for pointing me to the spending bills mandate Article/Section.

If IQ is a measurement of the capacity to learn, then the righties' individual, and collective, IQ may actually be a negative number. Is that so, John??

Yellowdog -

You pretty much got it right. As a strictly parliamentary procedure measure, the McConnell bill can be sent down to the House, where it is wide open for anything anyone wants to put in it. Boehner indeed still holds the cards, but behind him the TP stands with a gun to his head. Now the House amendments themselves do not pre-empt the Senate from first passing the bill. It's the amendments after that, in the House version, that would have to return for Senate approval. Usually committees of both houses get together for a "reconciliation" meeting in which they negotiate agreement about differences in the bills their chambers adopted. There is a trick in reconciliation that would allow simple majority votes to then push the measure to the White House - that's what was used to finally get the health insurance bill out of the Congress.

How this matter will proceed, however, is still only a soothsayer's realm.

The comments of WCA and Spanky illustrate how much disarray is in the Conservative ranks these days. There is NOTHING good to talk about for the GOPTP so they pick a harmless comment by a poster who always behaves as a gentleman and paint him as a racist.

So Fiesty I take this to mean you have nothing to come back with. Yes the truth stings and you would know.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time but, I asked you a question REB...

Name ONE thing President Obama has proposed that wasn't 'shot down' by the right wing nut jobs?

I been around here long enough to know that the RWNJ's demand answer while NEVER answering questions posed to them. You fit perfectly in that catagory dear...

Tell us again WHO has NOTHING to come back with again?

Like I said, much appreciated you posting it! ;o)

Fiesty

Only ONE?? Here goes - I believe the president proposed and actually extended the Bush era tax cuts for everyone including those people making over $200,000 so that they are now known as the Obama tax cuts.

Now that that is settled - what's next??? Yes the truth stings.

From # 1.28 above: John A: You sound like you consider yourself an expert on this issue. Could you please point me to the Article and Section of the Constitution that mandates spending bills originate in the House?

Gotta go out now. Maybe you're still researching it. I'll check back for your response tomorrow.

LOL!!!

Yeah, sure John A - calling an entire group stupid is certainly the "gentlemanly" thing to do.

Plus, there really is nothing for us to talk about. Everybody knows debt, deficit and cuts to entitlements are what the democrats are all about.

Thanks for using your obviously high IQ to highlight that for us in a racist way.

In my opinion, the Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1 Section 7). This was the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes). The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

However, the House, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.

And Fiesty what about that job you supposedly have not working for First Read or whatever left wing blog group you want to call it?? When are you going to answer me on that???

REB - Thanks for your post. I've been busy elsewhere and was just working up to something when I read yours.

The "Origination clause" is from English common law, requiring that spending and taxation measures begin in the House of Commons, as representatives of those being taxed. In fact, it was this tradition that led to the Revolutionary War slogan (yes, used at the original Boston Tea Party), "No taxation without representation."

There indeed have been differences of interpretation about the use of "revenue" in the Constitution. You accurately explained the circumstances and why today appropriations measures are considered bills that must originate in the house.

I believe the president proposed and actually extended the Bush era tax cuts for everyone including those people making over $200,000 so that they are now known as the Obama tax cuts.

Strange - I couldn't find any source to back up your claim that President Obama proposed extending the Bush tax cuts (so in other words, you believe mistakenly) lol

What I did find was plenty of sources to back up the FACT the Party of Greed held Americans hostage by threatening to cut off unemployment benefits a couple of weeks before Christmas.

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans on Monday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy.

Mr. Obama said that he did not like some elements of the framework, but that he had agreed to it to avoid having taxes increase for middle class Americans at the end of the year. He said that in return for agreeing to Republican demands that income tax rates not go up on upper-income brackets, he had secured substantial assistance to lower- and middle-income workers as well as the unemployed.

Pay attention, this is my favorite part:

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F12%2F07%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F07cong.html&ei=Uy8nTqKaDLHXiAKpuLjcCQ&usg=AFQjCNG27obg4BvtFiY6jHWZS-VxQ65giA

Oh, and one more thing, NO matter how hard you try to spin it - those UNFUNDED tax cuts will always be known as Bush's... lol

Damn those pesky facts! ;o))

Joe, I'm sure John A can add to this but I'll beg his forgiveness for answering as well. The authority comes from Article I, Section 7;

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html

Now, by language alone that would indicate that this clause would apply to taxation alone, but by interpretation and tradition going back to the earliest days of the republic it has always been applied to spending bills as well;

The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."

However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q125.html

Have a nice day.

Here's Mr. Boehner's chance to step up and show a Profile in Courage....................give us moderate righties some hope................

Joe in Albany,

Could you please point me to the Article and Section of the Constitution that mandates spending bills originate in the House?

First sentence in Article I Section 7:

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;"

Maybe you should read it!

TO: REB-1013231 who wrote:

"Fiesty Only ONE?? Here goes - I believe the president proposed and actually extended the Bush era tax cuts for everyone including those people making over $200,000 so that they are now known as the Obama tax cuts..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republicans have been trying to transfer their fleas from that nasty dog of the theirs (George W. Bush), which is the ONLY time they seem to remember the guy, when they pick something lousy Bush did and try to transfer that over to the Dems, i.e., these are Obama's war's, Obama's Tax Cuts, etc.

But REB, it's not going to work prior to the presidential election because, since the GOP hasn't done ANYTHING in the past 3 years, all they have to run on AGAIN is Bush's failures.

Fiesty and your surrogate American Girl

Since you refuse to accept that your guy signed the bill indicating agreement - he could have vetoed it, and you weren't in any of the discussions that would prove it wasn't part of his proposal, how about taking on the Obama Afghanistan surge?? Didn't he propose that at West Point and wasn't it supported and passed by the Republicans??

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Months behind schedule and stripped of money for domestic stimulus programs, legislation to fund the troop surge in Afghanistan was sent to President Barack Obama on Tuesday after disgruntled Democrats failed to block it.

Democratic leaders had to rely on Republican support to pass the almost $59 billion measure to fund Obama's additional 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and other programs. The final vote was 308-114. Twelve Republicans and 102 Democrats opposed it.

Now what about an answer to my question Redhead - what about that job you supposedly have not working for First Read or whatever left wing blog group you want to call it?? When are you going to answer me on that???

Also Fiesty how come you don't include the 3.9 Trillion cost of the tax cuts for the "Middle Class".

Oh, and one more thing, NO matter how hard you try to spin it - those UNFUNDED tax cuts will now be known as Obama's... lol

Damn those pesky facts! ;o))

Thanks REB and John B.

usconstitution.net is one of the best web sites I have ever seen. From reading the answer to FAQ 125 it seems that the "mandate" that spending bills originate in the House is born of tradition and rivalry between the two houses, rather than embodied in the actual text of the Constitution. One of the interesting things I learned a few years ago on a behind the scenes tour of the Capitol is that the House and Senate really dislike each other as an institution. The guide, an aide to a Senator, said that it is like the Senate considers the House to be unruly children and the House considers the Senate to be snooty patricians that think their sh!t doesn't stink. That would explain the "blue-slipping" and the Senate's acceptance of such "childish" behavior. It would be interesting to see what the SC would say if presented with a case directly questioning the constitutionality of a spending bill that originated in the Senate.

No problem, Joe. I learned a little in the process as well.

It's a moot point regardless. Any plan Obama is okay with the Republicans will automatically oppose.

Per Politico today:

A Senate Republican leadership aide emails with subject line “Gang of Six”: “Background guidance: The President killed any chance of its success by 1) Embracing it. 2) Hailing the fact that it increases taxes. 3) Saying it mirrors his own plan.”

nisl: It's a moot point regardless. Any plan Obama is okay with the Republicans will automatically oppose.

Like the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation the House just passed? Any Democrats stepping up to support that bill in the Senate?

And just when is the Senate going to pass a bill on this issue? Any bill. Harry should just pick one and put it to a vote. Lets finally see what bright ideas the Democrats have and are willing to vote for.

nisl

It's not moot.

If the Presidents plan cuts the same $4 trillion and is different and is balanced from other plans presented, then why would it not be as well received in the Senate as was the Gang of Six plan.

I for one, would love to see the details.

Ira

It's moot because the House will never pass a bill Obama wants or is okay with. The Senate is not the problem, the House is. The Senate isn't holding the debt ceiling hostage, the House is.

Let's keep in mind that the Debt Ceiling increase is usually about two sentences long, it could be passed in literally twenty minutes if the House weren't riddled with wingnut extremists.

Nisl...

...and the House is prepared to pass the Gang of Six plan?

Not even close. There are too many people in the House that do NOT believe that default will not have any effect on our credit or economy or for that matter the global economy. These deniers, I believe are dead wrong. The effect will ultimately be catastrophic.

Why dismiss the Obama Plan...I just want the details.

JAS1 - We have no idea what's in CCB bill because the Republicans pushed it through way too fast to actually have debate on the specifics. From what I understand it's worse than the Ryan Budget Bill and the American people wholely and resoundingly rejected that plan. So what makes you think for even one second the American people will embrace the CCB bill? With that in mind why should the Senate take up a bill the American people will definitely reject? A compromise is the only answer here remembering that the House Republicans do not have total control of the government and therefore MUST compromise. There's really no other way. The American people will punish Tea Party backed representatives in 2012 for taking this country off a cliff.

Ira

...and the House is prepared to pass the Gang of Six plan?

No, the house isn't. Per Politico the Gang of Six plan was killed the second Obama said (sort of) that he supported it. That was my point.

the House passed a plan, the Democrats have done nothing to present any plan of their own. The democrats have become the party of no I guess.... no to anything the republcans have passed. I guess the Dems are not acting in the best interest of the country since the republicans have presented plans and the Dems are just obstructing.

"Reid-McConnell plan, the Gang of Six proposal, and President Obama's "grand plan."

If these three groups plans which i believe will be central enough if harmonized and put forward to congress let's see how Norquist ward led by Cantor, will refuse to go with it.

Also I believe this current impasse would teach many a lesson that you don't sit out on election day. The consequences are almost immediate and unpalatable.

laurie: JAS1 - We have no idea what's in CCB bill because the Republicans pushed it through way too fast to actually have debate on the specifics.

You can read it at your leisure. The GOP kept it simple so even Liberals might have a chance to comprehend it.

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2560

laurie: So what makes you think for even one second the American people will embrace the CCB bill?

It's getting to the point where it doesn't matter what the people think, but it is getting more and more important what our creditors think. See Greece for details.

laurie: With that in mind why should the Senate take up a bill the American people will definitely reject?

The Senate isn't taking up much else, in fact Reid is waiting on Boehner for some odd reason. What exactly does Harry do with all his time?

Laurie,

For a minute there I thought you were talking about the HC Bill-sorry. I would like to know this "grand Plan"too. Last time Obama came up with something on his own is got shot down 97-0. If it's so GREAT why can't the American people know what it is?

Interesting point - why won't Reid man up and pass he and McConnell's plan?

Is Reid still bitter about the cowboy poetry cuts?

JAS1

Correction, Let's call it what it is, "Duck, Dodge and Dismantle."

Hey job1 one - at least there is an "it."

Far more than the dems or Obama can say, let alone hold up and point to.

nisl

It's a moot point regardless. Any plan Obama is okay with the Republicans will automatically oppose.

Per Politico today:

A Senate Republican leadership aide emails with subject line “Gang of Six”: “Background guidance: The President killed any chance of its success by 1) Embracing it. 2) Hailing the fact that it increases taxes. 3) Saying it mirrors his own plan.”

==========

Interesting and yet all too typical. the merits of a bill/plan are hogwash because the President looked at it...endorsed it...likes it....speaks to it...farts next to it etc. It has nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with it looking too much like the President is down with it.

These people are amazing.

Laurie - so why not go to the congressional record or wherever and read it??

Largely overlooked in today's news flow, was a Jay Carney remark that may be more revealing than he or his boss intended.

During the regular news briefing ABC News' Jake Tapper asked Carney, with all this Obama talk about the minuses of other peoples' debt reduction plans, where's Obama's plan?

Carney's stunning reply: Leadership is not proposing a plan. If he did, it likely would be voted down.

Here's that full exchange:

Q: The House is passing something that many observers feel would never pass the Senate and the President has said he would veto. The Senate is passing -- the McConnell-Reid plan, it’s not clear that that could pass the House. The Gang of Seven plan, it’s not clear that that could pass the House. Would this not be an opportune time for a President to lead and say, “This specifically....” --

MR. CARNEY: Leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down, and likely voted down, because it is -- look, you know how this town works and how Congress works. If an individual, whether a Democrat or Republic leader, steps forward and says, “This is my plan and solely my plan,” it makes it a lot harder for that plan to be the basis for a bipartisan compromise.

So, as we near what he says is a looming crisis to believe in two weeks from today, don't look for this leader of the United States to be doing anything more than react to the ideas of others. What else did you expect from the guy that voted "Present".

Can anyone name any of the actual cuts in the 500 Billions bill, that the House passed last night?

JAS1 and American - Really??? You're going to present that argument to me after all the breast beating about no one knowing what was in the Health Care Act??? Hmm. Especially when there were copious hearings on HCRA. Now you can't say the same thing for this piece of *&%$. First off, CCB is a gimmick plain and simple. You know the old saying, "You Gotta Have A Gimmick If You Want To Get A Hand". Well they got one....Second there were no hearings to flesh out the specifics so the American people could understand what they were getting in this bill and they would understand just how deep the cuts would be and what programs would be affected. So don't tell me to go read something on the web...that's just BS. Third,if the Republicans were even remotely serious about their so called Deficit Reduction Dream Legislation, they wouldn't all hide behind its cutesy title and be blank when it comes to answering specifics instead preferring to parrot each other with vague pre-programmed talking points that sound real good but in the end "signify nothing". So save your trite comments about go read the legislation because you minimalize yourself further in this debate.

REB, by misquoting you changed the entire meaning of Carney's statement. Go back and read it again. It says "Leadership is not proposing a plan FOR THE SAKE OF..."

nisl

Ira

...and the House is prepared to pass the Gang of Six plan?

No, the house isn't. Per Politico the Gang of Six plan was killed the second Obama said (sort of) that he supported it. That was my point.

I absolutely agree with you nisl, apparently President Obama is still playing poker and the others spades.

I doubt he would have openly lent support for this proposal if he actually wanted it. He's still moving in, at

least, a 3 track parallel direction with few really knowing where he's really going. IMHO!

So Fielden I assume this means you have nothing to came back with. Carney said the president is not, has not and never will propose a plan of his own. I remember when he was running he had a plan for everything but not now that he has the job. Maybe it was too much to expect.

You can read it at your leisure. The GOP kept it simple so even Liberals might have a chance to comprehend it.

I read it, it has no cuts...where are the cuts? FAIL

So Fielden I assume this means you have nothing to came back with. Carney said the president is not, has not and never will propose a plan of his own. I remember when he was running he had a plan for everything but not now that he has the job. Maybe it was too much to expect.

Whose job is it to create and pass legislation? CONGRESS. There isnt a DEm plan or an Obama plan because their proposed plans are BI_PARTISAN PLANS. The GOP wants an Obama plan so they can publicly shoot it down as an 2012 election ploy. OR....do the McConnel plan so they can keep the debt reduction story alive through election day. Either way, the American voters are catching on to the irresponsible GOP, scared to death by their Teaturd, birther bretheren

The GOP (Ryan Plan, CCB) is the only 'plan' that is partisan. Thats the difference. The GOP wants an 'Obama' plan so they can take the heat off their failure to negotiate a deal. America wants a balanced plan, only the TEaturds and their GOP lapdogs (fearful of getting annilated in 2012) are for CCB and the Ryna Plan.

The Teaturd Party (GOP) in their intranscience and idiocy have lost the Independant voter.

the House passed a plan, the Democrats have done nothing to present any plan of their own.

Um...yeah..about that GOP plan...it wont pass in the Senate and will get Vetoed even if it did pass. What a waste of time and it doesnt even state any cuts either!!! EPIC FAIL and nothing but political theater to appease the Teaturds

The Dems wont put forth a plan, because they want BIPARTISAN PLANS. So hope as you might, but the only debt plan thats gona make it is a bipartisan one. Sorry.

Tim - Seattle - you are rigtht on in your assessment. However, since the House of Representatives is charged with originating Budgetary LEGISLATION, the President doesn;t have to provide ANYTHING other than the mandated outline of what he wants to spend.

What we are seeing is that the GOPers in the House are standing out in the cold with their butts hanging out because they did not do THEIR jobs. Now, to cover their butts, they are trying to blame all of this on the President.

If there is no budgetary legislation, it is because the HOUSE has FAILED to produce it.

TO: JoAnnaSmith1 who wrote:

nisl: It's a moot point regardless. Any plan Obama is okay with the Republicans will automatically oppose.

"Like the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation the House just passed? Any Democrats stepping up to support that bill in the Senate?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republicans could probably get support from Democrats, except that the GOP wants a full repeal of Health Care Reform, they want the Dems to turn over our Social Security Retirement money, and the GOP wants Medicare cancelled, but absolutely NO taxing the rich, and NO cancellation of the tax breaks or tax lopeholes.

The Democrats aren't supposed to do any of that, which is why there's no deal.

laurie - you asked the question about what was in it and I told you where to look. Regardless, wasn't it pelosi who stood behind the podium and proclaimed they didn't need to read it, just sign it because it was good.

You are such a silly little girl, describing how obama and company hasn't even presented the inkling of a debt reduction plan that could even be brought up for a vote in either house. Not to worry though, at this late date, it doesn't really matter anymore. Time is up for any comprehensive plan not already in the works to be voted on.

American girl, quit being a silly twit. Obamas tax cuts expire at the end of 2012 and the right agreed to it, so what is the point of still wanting it, in 18 months it will be no more.

As for SS and medicare, those programs are not sustainable under current laws. Do you really expect any person who can balance a check book or maintain a household budget to believe that government can control costs of any nature?

As a sidebar, how many programs can obama promote for the wealthy "to just give a little more to..." before the libs lower their sights on the next income level of people, then the next until your precious seniors, poor and disabled are told that the coffers are finally and truly empty.

How many spending cuts were detailed in the GOP's "Cut, Cap and Deceive" bill? None. They say, "We'll lower spending by X amount," but they don't say what they'll cut.

For the Republicans to be demanding that Obama and the Democrats detail the cuts they are okay with while refusing to do the same is hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy and desperation and the realization that they are loosing this fight.

I love it.

There is zero reason for the President to have any plan at all as the debt ceiling raise has nothing to do with future spending.

The Congress owns the spending/funding of Govt. issue not the President

This is a made up crisis that the R's have lost.

Read the Gang of 6 plan and you will see where the Senate and President, in a bipartisan way want to go. It has a lot to like and lot of pain for all the constituencies but it is good work.

I agree....this timed and planned by cooler heads in the Senate to yank the rug out from under the nuts in the House. Good job Senators and President Obama!!!

All the Great Proposals in the Senate are just symbolic, because none of them will pass in the House.

JAS1 - Keep telling youself that if you makes you feel better.

Hey JAS1 - golly wasn't it the libbies that were crying about how dysfunctional the senate is, and how unfair it is with it "arcane" filibuster rules?

Yet now they are the "cooler" heads.

The flip flopping is mind numbing. Is it possible that in addition to being unable to see the forest through the trees they also can't remember the positions they took just a few months ago?

Damn, it must be hard to be a libbie. 25 freshmen congressmen control the whole power structure of Washington. :(

Don't worry, the Right wing gang will have major problems in 2012.

You are right job1. Like Obama has found out - presidentin' is hard.

Talk about flip flopping

Reagan--------------deficits don't matter

Bush I --------------deficits don't matter

Clinton--------------republican suddenly swing to fiscal conservatives and the desperate need to pay down Reagan's debt

Bush II--------------Reagan proved deficits don't matter

Obama--------------hard swing to fiscal conservatives and freaking out about the deficits that just didn't matter two years ago. Now it is to pay down Bush's debt.

Do you see a pattern here? Think the problem might be all the flip flopping the republicans are doing.

The difference this time is that Clinton got to raise taxes several times to pay down Reagan's debt and now the republicans have signed a treasonous pledge to never raise taxes on the richest of Americans again.

Clinton's plan worked and put Americans back to work. Amazingly enough tax increases did not kill jobs they grew jobs.

Republican plan now seems to be run up debt, blame the other party and demand the debt to be paid on the back of the middle class, education, food for children, social security just so it is anybody but the rich.

At least during Clinton's time republicans still cared something about America and did what was best for all not just the rich.

Damn, it must be hard to be a libbie.

Actually its getting easier every day America wotnesses the GOP shaking in their boots and cowering to the Teaturds who have taken their party hostage. The GOP moderates that get things done are gone. The obstructionist knucklegraggers are in power on the right.

And Obama is the adult in the room seeking a bipartisan plan. The GOP is not going to get everything they want. They will look stupid that they passed up 3 Trillion in cuts so some Corporate pig can keep his offshore tax haven while outsourcing our jobs to INdia and China.

The independant voters who voted them in are abandoning them now that it is clear they CANT GOVERN.

Great insight kr.

You know all those comparisons of Obama to FDR. Nope, he's really Gorbachev. He presided over the fall of his beloved system, which collapsed right in front of him.

Cause the debt, defit and tax cuts just are not part of the Blue dream.

So kr, are we all safe in assuming that perhaps you are not wealthy? Hey - I love OPM too. Know where I can get any?

I just have to ask, since you are willing to volunteer other to pay half f their incomes to taxes, are you will ing to do the same? Would be willing to give 50% of your income to the govt.?

If not why is it so easy for you give someone elses income away? Is it because you perceive that hey have more to give? Which is complete BS by the way. Just because someone earns more money doesn't mean they should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes. If that's the case what is the incentive to work hard and earn that extra income?

If you made a million dollars a year would be willing to $500,000 in taxes? That's insane!!! No one would ever do that, and it's wrong to ask it.

The wealthy already pay more in taxes even if they had to pay the same 15% as anyone else. Quick what 10% of 50,000? Now what's 10% of 5,000,000? See my point?

Oops! Brutus- you drank from the Kool-Aid pitcher.

That bill talks about caps and limits on spending

So you admit there are no "Cuts" in the "Cut, Cap and Deceive" plan?

If not, please tell us what, exactly, will be cut? You can't, can you?

Freaking pathetic.

nisl: So you admit there are no "Cuts" in the "Cut, Cap and Deceive" plan?

Do you struggle to read? How about comprehend?

If it means nothing, as appears to mean to you, why doesn't the Senate pass it? They won't because it puts restrictions on spending, and Obama and the Democrats can't have that. Do you understand how that works?

You need to pick up your game nisl. You're really losing ground.

JAS1 - No need to insult people here. We all understand you are swimming up stream on this one but still please be civil.

You really shouldn't insult other people's reading comprehension then type the following:

If it means nothing, as appears to mean to you

That's just poor writing.

As to why the Senate won't pass it I'd say because there ARE huge cuts that haven't been spelled out and because those cuts would come from our social safety net. In other words, because by passing it people on Social Security and Medicare would be heavily punished.

laurie: JAS1 - No need to insult people here. We all understand you are swimming up stream on this one but still please be civil.

You mean like this:

laurie-480643
John A - No sense in trying to engage JAS1....she's frighteningly ignorant.....and, quickly frankly, she has no idea what you just said. You know "current receipts", "unfunded obligations"......she can't debate you because her education is limited to what some right wing nut feeds her which she promptly regurgitates.
#1.19 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 1:38 PM CDT

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/08/7042711-boehner-gop-obama-still-far-apart-on-debt-deal?commentId=55753838#c55753838

You are such a peach laurie. And a hypocrite.

nisl: As to why the Senate won't pass it I'd say because there ARE huge cuts that haven't been spelled out and because those cuts would come from our social safety net. In other words, because by passing it people on Social Security and Medicare would be heavily punished

But those entitlement programs are bankrupting the country nisl. What do you suggest we do to make certain that doesn't happen?

nisl,

So which is it, you say in the same sentence that the cuts haven't been spelled out and then say cuts would come from our social safety net. If you don't know, don't make something up and try to scare or should say use SS has a tactic. It seems to be the Liberal's "buzz" word for this week.

No JAS1 today is Wednesday, that's the day Laurie is civil.

So, as you can see, not a total hypocrite, just forgetful.

Jas1 - I'd be fine with a balanced approach, even if it involves more cuts than revenues. But there is NOTHING balanced about the Cut, Cap and Deceive plan. Nothing.

Paul - The cuts, which are rather large, haven't been spelled out. And given the size of our non-defense discretionary spending there is no way those cuts wouldn't involve massive and immediate cuts to our social safety net.

So let me ask you this nisl, when do we stop paying for these social safety nets? It's sad to say, it has to stop. It's costing too much money and people will get butt hurt. I'm sure I'll get screwed over too, I'm 43 and been putting my share into the system and by the way not by choice, I would rather be in charge of my future than the government, but that's just me. I'm certain that I won't see any of the money I put in.

Has to stop? Whatever for?

August 2010 revenue: $165 billion. August 2010 expenditures: $370 billion.

Problem? We ain't got no stinking problem.

Paul - So first you say I'm trying to scare people by saying that the huge cuts will impact our social safety net and then you say you want our social safety net removed all together?

Look at the rest of the first world countries. Look at their social safety net, their tax structure, and their long term fiscal outlook. There is nothing about our system that is unsustainable unless our Congress makes it so. Further, if you move to most any of those countries you would be in LESS charge of your future than you currently are.

Of course, you could move to a third world country and have a ton more control of your future. But you seem smart, you must realize there are big downsides to such a move.

Cause to nisl it's totally cool to borrow $.42 of every dollar spent.

nisl, why is it I suspect you don't employ that awesome financial strategy personally?

nisl: Jas1 - I'd be fine with a balanced approach, even if it involves more cuts than revenues. But there is NOTHING balanced about the Cut, Cap and Deceive plan. Nothing.

So we're now beyond the point that CCB has cuts, real cuts in it. Now you just don't like the cuts.

Progress.

Again though nisl, how do you want to resolve the problem of entitlement programs bankrupting the country?

nisl: Look at the rest of the first world countries. Look at their social safety net, their tax structure, and their long term fiscal outlook.

Like with Europe? Europe's near and long term outlook doesn't look so good, what with Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Greece going under. There are few austerity measures being implemented for Europe, won't you agree?

So we're now beyond the point that CCB has cuts, real cuts in it. Now you just don't like the cuts

I don't like that the cuts aren't spelled out. Pay attention. Why am I wasting my time on someone so incapable of critical thinking?

And yes, Europe does contain several first world countries. I'm surprised you are aware of that. Actually there are many austerity measures going on in Europe, not "few" like you seem to be implying. Remind me again, how has Great Britain's economy reacted to their austerity measures? Is there economy shrinking or growing?

SS and Medicare/Medicaid plus the interest on our ever growing debt will consume our budget within a few years. There will not be enough revenue to confiscate. Our politicians are choosing to ignore it because they have no backbone.

Poorly thought out, knee jerk reactionary political expediants such as SS and Medicare should be phased out.

Some short term "fixes":

end the wars and close a lot of overseas bases. Start today.

means test every govt handout.

the GAO recently released a report detailing waste and redundancy. Act on it today.

get out of the way of the job producers. i.e. energy.

address illegal immigration and punish those who encourage it. Obama included.

Cut Congressional pay, staff, pensions, health care, and any perk indefinitely.

Careful nisl - you're getting rude, laurie doesn't like rude people. And just where did she disappear to?

So what do you think nisl, everyone that bet on their governments to do the "right thing" with all the money they collected for entitlements- how'd that work out? Have you seen any accounts in DC loaded with all that money the feds collected for those entitlements?They seem empty to me, bunch of IOUs that the government can't make good on. Even Obama knows that, he knows that the revenue taken in each month for SS won't cover the payments. He said so last week when he said he didn't know if he could send out the checks unless he was allowed to borrow even more money. The SS program is empty, broke, bankrupt. What do you suggest we do about it?

JAS1 - Guess I hit a nerve there huh!! Well JAS1 if you are ignorant of the facts then it's more of a statement than an insult. Now if I called you an expletive on top of that statement then I would be being rude. I just stated the obvious. If you can't take the heat of debate perhaps you should leave the kitchen!

laurie - nisl has demonstrated he can play well with others. Why can't you?

And now laurie, you can get back to the tantrum you seem to be having.

JAS1 - Hmm!! So you think it is I who is having the tantrum?? Really?? I guess it must be difficult when you've been out debated on the facts. I have a thick skin JAS1. Your remarks don't bother me.

JAS1 - BTW Social Security is not an entitlement....it's an insurance policy and as such works exactly the same way. Some people pay in all their lives and die before they collect a dime and some people live for 30 years after retirement and collect much more than they paid in. That's the nature of insurance and that's the way SS was set up. Stop demagoguing the issue by calling it an entitlement when it clearly is not and never have been.

The republicans are trying to convince us that social security is just welfare by another name.

Governor Reagan threw the veterans from Vietnam on the streets when he closed all the care homes where the troubled vets were staying. I know this because I was the Assistant Administrator in a rest home that got some of the non-ambulatory patients. From one day to the next, homeless were everywhere. This is how republicans treat veterans. Republicans claim to love veterans.

Do you think they are going to treat seniors any better?

Americans First - Agreed. Republicans don't care about seniors or about veterans. They care about the almighty dollar and who gets most of them. This has been their mission since the inception of Social Security and Medicare to end these programs and they have found the perfect excuse in the debt and deficit crisis we are in. In the guise of having to save the country from these terrible deficits we have to "fix" these programs to save them. Well just reading Ryan's budget we all know just what "fix" means for Medicare. If they could get their way they'd privatize Social Security and lower the benefit. In the absence of a privatization scheme, they will settle for lowering the benefits and/or hiking the retirement age. The shame of it is that too many people cannot see the real intentions behind Republican's chest beating about saving our country. I say BS....they could care less about saving this country as evidenced by their willingness to watch it go down in flames on August 3rd.

So True.

"Pat" The gipper wouldn't even be allowed in his own party today...

Pat-

Speaking of FoxNews...

I just bet they are a tad bit nervous since the hearings in London reveal that all the politicians and Scotland Yard have been bought and paid for by Rupert.

What a corrupt individual!!!

I recollect now thinking that Keith Olbermann was exaggerating Mr. Murdoch's character flaws but he wasn't even close!

Taxpayer,

See, it's easier to say that you're a leader than to actually be one.

RGiles, talk about "blind loyalty" or should we call it obedience to be clear.

Its more like the protection racket.

Do and sign what I say or we'll burn down your senate seat.

Oh yeah! And the obstinate Republican Tea Party in the House got all the balls! Big ones too! Ever see what happens when a bully gets whacked in the nuts? Goes down just as quickly whether they're big or small. Obama will swift kick those sacs with the same result. Wait and see!

I know why you're mad. You're attempting to participate in something in which you have no idea as to what's going on.

Your one to talk doug like you know what's going on.

All Repugnacants/TPs and most Dems must go!

Republicans like their women dumb as rocks and purdy, you know like Palin and Bachmann.

You especially are to never stand up to a republicans or out them for their lies. Good woman knows her place. If you don't know your place, you are not a lady.

"Marxist liberals"? Now that's funny stuff.

The House bill won't pass the Senate because jamming a balanced budget amendment into what should be the routine business of paying for business to which Congress has ALREADY AGREED is simply inappropriate.

When will the GOPTP radicals just do their job as they should?

Could be that this bill has nothing to do with a balanced budget and all about placing the whole cost of the wars and tax cuts on the poor and middle class. Mostly it is about never raising taxes on the rich again.

If President Obama veto's it, he will have more support.

I know everything is Obama's Waterloo in your mind. So far only a generic (some republican that doesn't exist) could even come close. Add a republican name and their chances become less.

A vote for any republican is a vote to end social security.

Pretty much jb, pretty much. He may consume food and oxygen but he does a pretty good job of imitating a machine designed to regurgitate Conservative talking points.

2006 yeah, that's about time bush was heavy into his drunken with power spending spree. If bush had not given these tax cuts, we would be current on our war bills. Our government had to borrow money to pay for the tax cuts to the richest in America starting the very first year.

These tax cuts are half our debt. Harry Reid was speaking to the truth, but no one listened and the republicans felt like borrowing our way through the wars was the right thing to do. No tax increases just borrow and borrow.

The interesting way the republicans handle this is just because half the debt is because of tax cuts, we should cut social security and never raise taxes on the rich again.