E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The House of Representatives successfully passed Republicans' 2014 budget on Thursday with four votes to spare, relying only upon GOP votes to advance Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's third budget blueprint.
The House voted 221-207, largely along party lines, to advance the budget for the next government fiscal year. The plan seeks to balance the budget within a decade, primarily by saving $4.6 trillion through cuts to spending, and reforms to Medicare that would transform the plan into a "premium support" (or voucher) system.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., explains to fellow members of the House why his budget proposal should be approved.
Ten Republicans joined with Democrats, all of whom opposed the Ryan budget, to vote against the plan. Due to the defections, Republicans only passed their budget by an extra margin of four votes. Ten Republicans also opposed last year's budget, though there were 241 total GOP members of the House last year, versus 232 sitting Republicans at the time of today's vote.
The budget is the third passed by Republicans since retaking the House in the 2010 elections. But like the two preceding budgets, Ryan's 2014 fiscal blueprint will likely never become law, due to opposition from both the president and Senate Democrats.
The House moved quickly following the budget vote to pass legislation settling spending levels for the rest of this fiscal year, which concludes at the end of September.
The House voted 318-109 with bipartisan support to pass a continuing resolution funding the government through that date, averting a government shutdown that would have occurred at the end of March if spending authority had run out. The Senate passed that legislation on Wednesday, and it now heads to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature, once he returns from a foreign trip to Israel.
Leave a Comment:
Let's see where this stalls...
Party of no...
It is stalled at the president, who has yet to submit his 2014 budget.
Always on time with his NCAA bracket though.
DingleB, better that Hussein is busy with NCAA brackets and playing golf. Whenever he tries to act like he's governing, we the people get screwed.
I don't understand why Republicans keep presenting the same budget the American People rejected last November over and over again, and expect a different result.
TO: DingleB who wrote:
Republicans are not listening to the American People.
We have already rejected these same ideas last November.
Don't blame President Obama, blame the American People.
American Girl-724855
Kind of like the left keeps presenting the same AWB over and over again and expecting a different result. Ryan's budget is a starting point in the budget negotiation process, nobody believes it will actually become law.
I don't what more needs to be stated. A vote on Ryan's budget passes with 221-209 (with 10 GOP voting against and no Democrats voting for) and you have a CR which set spending levels for the rest of the fiscal year coming in at 318-109.
For a population allegedly demanding cooperation in Washington, I'm not certain how anyone can objectively look at what was passed at the budget level and see that the Republicans are simply being foolish.
If out of control spending is out of control spending, what exactly is the political spin as to why the CR vote of 318 shouldn't just be the vote of the 'tax n spend Democrats'?
Correct so why did the house vote on it? To play politics.
I can't understand way Democrats keep presenting the same gun bill the American People rejected over and over again and expect a different result.
More bawdy humor emanating from the repugnican house!!!
Why do republicans only want and approve of tongue-in-cheek legislation from their elected representatives? Why do they try to act all serious and what-not when they're fully aware that Sham-Wow produces a better product?
DingleB
American Girl-724855
Kind of like the left keeps presenting the same AWB over and over again and expecting a different result
============
A bit of an apple and a cucumber there Dingle. Polls show a majority Public support a ban and much more legislation in favor of gun control. What members of Congress do/represent is quite another.
TO: DingleB who wrote:
No, it's snot.
We're not going to begin with a lie that the entire country has already rejected in the general election as any kind of "starting point" when it should have been the "ending point".
Ryan's budget calls for the end of Obamacare, which is now law, and that's only one non-starter.
The American People have already rejected this, both verbally and at the polls.
Ryan's budget is nothing more than yet another signal from Republicans that they're not listening to the American People, or otherwise Republicans just don't care.
Liberals like American Girl believe that Republicans are supposed to be handing Obama the budget he wants, and not what they believe is in the best interest of the country. Liberals like American Girl don't seem to understand how Congress is set up to work. Instead we have gotten the Obama way, which goes behind closed doors to facilitate the blame game, or rams through legislation like ObamaCare using procedural loopholes. Any piece of legislation written behind closed doors in secret locations that has to be passed before everyone can find out what is in it, must be good. If the Senate Democrats can finally after four years pass a budget, and Obama gets around to one now that his March Madness picks are in, maybe liberals like American Girl will get to see first hand how the process is designed to work.
Our country is $16.5+ trillion in debt, rapidly rising .... and libs will decry any attempt for our country to live within its income !
People must live within their incomes or go bankrupt !
Corporations must live within their incomes or go bankrupt !!
Why do liberals consistently fail to understand that our country cannot maintain annual $1.4 trillion dollar deficits ? Do they honestly think that printing more "fiat" currency is the answer ? Are they really that dense ??
jim-1455434
Modern Monetary Theory says that the government doesn't need to live within their means. Those who subscribe to that hogwash will be along any moment now to tell you how "deficits don't matter" (yes I know Cheney said it first) and that government fiscal policy is immune to the restraints personal and business finance are subject to.
Show me. I see where people favor changes to existing laws pertaining to sales but I see nothing on gun control.
TO: Rick-3416939 who wrote:
The "budget" does not apply to one man.
Republicans are attempting to write a "budget" for the entire country, which the entire country has already rejected.
Republicans must be using the name "Obama" so that they don't have to refer to the "American People".
I'm sure whatever "budget" Republicans come up with is NOT going to affect President Obama ONLY. The fact is, it probably won't affect President Obama at all.
It would, however, affect people like me who Republicans refuse to pay any attention to whatsoever!
Ryan's budget is a DOA, it is not serious in any way. America likes social security and and medicare Robme/Ruin was soundly rejected and part of that rejection was the voucher that would ruin medicare. The house needs to go back to the drawing board, make cuts to defense and stop robbing the middle class to protect the very rich. Then come back and talk to the senate.
Boy, just look at the republican responses. Non sense at its best. We don't have a spending problem we have a lack of revenue caused by supply side economic which is a failure in every aspect.
It seems that even some Republicans have come to the realization that Ryan’s math does not add up, and his proposals are politically impossible.
The reduction in revenue that would result from the significantly lower tax rates in the Ryan budget cannot be recovered by closing unspecified loopholes without severely impacting the middle class.
Cuts in discretionary spending that would be deep enough to offset the increased defense spending proposed by the Ryan budget would be politically impossible to implement.
Medicare spending cannot be reduced by introducing a new layer of cost and complexity, and free market forces would not lower Medicare costs further than existing price controls.
The repeal of Obamacare is politically unachievable and the unspecified cost savings incorporated into the budget are unrealistic.
It appears the consensus from both political parties is that the Ryan Budget is not a serious budget proposal, an attempt at compromise, or even the start of a negotiation. The latest Ryan budget is nothing more than an attempt to legislatively undo all the signature accomplishments of the Obama administration and invalidate the results of the last election.
Ryan and his band of TeaPeople will obscure the truth (they will lie) when they talk about his 'stop the spending' Path to Austerity.
I do not believe that in those gerrymandered districts there are no folks currently unemployed, poor, elderly, depending on MEDICARE, depending on MEDICAID, or Social Security.
All the TeaPeople Reps will say is Obama this, Obama that.......without any specifics on what Lyin Ryans Plan really does to them!
Dingle, you even have the process wrong, it has to be passed by the senate before the president even sees it. It won't pass mustard in the senate.
TO: Johntho who wrote:
Well said! I can't understand why Republicans don't get that.
Johntho, I love all your posts.
It won't get past Harry Reid's a$$ ... old Harry will do as Obama wants him to do and SIT ON IT !
Johntho
The Budget and Accounting Act 1921 requires the president to submit a budget request by the first Monday of February. He is HOPING to have it ready by April 8th.
What a waste of time. We all know that the Ryan Budget is trash, that will not pass the Senate. That garbage is headed to the trash heap.
TO: DingleB who wrote:
How many "budgets" did George "Curveball" Bush submit that actually had "real" figures on them?
Let me guess, Republicans didn't give a crap then and allowed the "Republican culture of corruption" to write down anything they wanted to write, even though Republicans knew the numbers were fake.
Funny.
I don't remember Obama running on his economic accomplishments. He ran on lies and demamgoguery. And more lies. Then some more lies. But not one mention of economic successes.
Then he was re-elected by voter fraud. And he only got 51% of the vote. 9 million less votes than last time.
His budget (if he ever submits one) will be a bigger joke than he is.
American Girl-724855
And out comes the "yeah, but what about Bush" fallacy again. Has Bush become the authority against which all other presidents are measured now?
Where you at Johntho?
Still googling the Budget Act of 1921?
TO: DingleB who wrote:
Republicans had no complaints when the "Republican culture of corruption" was running Washington.
Now Republicans think they can try to create some kind of snarky, stupid, one-liners to keep Americans from reminding people about the "Republican type of governing" during the Republican Bush Admiistration which amounted to nothing less than con-men, crooks and killers running the country.
I dont know about that..i just figured the country was dumber than they were 12years prior. now we have Bush's fourth term and longer than FDR
I would like to hear how you came up with voter fraud. Im being serious too...
Where you at Johntho?
probably thumbing through the Communist Manifesto completely baffled by this Budget Act...
To each according to their need huh?
So Dingle, what is your point, so the president is tardy. Grow up.
Thanks for the flowers AG. I try to bring the truth, something disgustus won't understand. He knows nothing about anything, except he knows how to be stupid, he performs every day for us. By the way AG, your not so bad yourself. Seems like those size two hats on the right never learn. They have to be shown the way every day.
Simple Theory . . .
And that's relevant why? First, the voter fraud line is BS and you know it. Post us all a link to back it up if you can. Second, who's in the White House???????? Are we going to have to read that drivel from you for the next 4 years? Is this birtherism re-vamped?
Good grief!
Hey disgustus, shut up. you know nothing.
Johntho
And without a hint of irony.
Layton-3733410 -
Thank you. You, Johntho and TNSEVOL all have said that today. Glad we can put the G. W. Bush Vs. Gore to rest. Bush won fair and square.
Yeah, tardy was something I experienced in grade school. 5 years late is not tardy, that is a no show. Grow up...laughable.
it would appear the opposite is true...so did you find the budget act in the Grand Manifesto? According to your need right...LMAO @ YOU....
LMAO
Jontho
Obama's failure to meet his statutory obligation regarding the budget submition shows a flagrant disregard for the entire process and absolutely no willingness on his part to get the financial mess that is the federal government in order. It's not just being "tardy." If fact, Obama is the only president to have missed the deadline two years in a row, the only president to miss deadline 3 out of 4 years, and he has the record for the longest delay which is 98 days.
That goes way beyond just being "tardy."
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/presidentsbudgetsubmission.pdf
Morgs . . .
Talk about apples and oranges! Then again this post is about the budget and you can't HELP but derail back to guns . . .
Why don't you post us all a link on the voter fraud story you're claiming. I spent some time reading articles on it this morning and everything linked back to a Fox story.
All about Firsts...First 'black' President, first Downgrade, first to violate war powers act (sorry not Bush) and many many other Great Firsts...
Make that 3 years in a row.
Layton -
Here is a link to many of them. Take your pick. http://www.truethevote.org/news/did-you-know-there-are-voter-fraud-convictions-and-prosecutions-in-46-states If Fox is covering a story in MN that is their prerogative. I don't have to go to them for local news.
The reason I bring up issues like this is because you on the left contradict yourselfs in how you speak and how you act. What is good for one thing that really touches your heart is terrible for something that you don't agree with. Have some freaking consistency with your stances besides just being against everything that doesn't appease the Left. You think a license is cool for gun purchases, sweet. Now you think that ID's are not cool for voter fraud. Well they are both rights, they both have the ability to affect thousands of people negatively even causing death but one you think is right and just and the other you think will hurt the people you care for so much. These are not facts, this just how you percieve these issues. Use rational thinking...use facts. Quit using your emotions to deal with problems, they only produce emotional responses which are rarely good for anyone. Logic is your friend...pal.
Ryan budget?
WTF
WAL (what a loser)!
Morgs74
Show me. I see where people favor changes to existing laws pertaining to sales but I see nothing on gun control.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/13/gun-control-key-data-points-from-pew-research/
50%-46% with 4% undecided....that certainly is a mandate. /s But thank you for the link.
www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx
Assault-weapons ban favored 60%-35%.
Universal background checks favored 91%-8%
Of course, that's when you ask people what they think of specific issues and don't attach them to a name or a party or don't use such politically charged terms as gun control or, worse still, "protect the right of Americans to own guns." That is seriously the most blatantly biased, leading, poorly worded survey question I've seen in my entire life. No wonder, by suggesting that any form of gun control is an attack on the Second Amendment, so many people said they were against gun control in that survey.
Any reasonable person can see how the Gallup poll was much more neutrally worded and is, as such, more reliable. And it shows overwhelming support for the kind of measures that Voldemort... er... *whispers softly* Obama... is proposing.
Morgs . . .
Did you OPEN that link? Did you READ it? I did while researching earlier. 5 states in 2012 with convictions. 4 of them Red for Life. Regarding all of those dead voters on the rolls, didn't say they were voting. Oh and the Arkansas information links back to .... drumroll .... FOX!
Next . . . .
*and don't use, not "or don't use"
TO: Simple Theory who wrote:
Ha! Like I said, Republicans just don't listen.
Layton-3733410 - Once again you are missing the point and your reply does nothing to shift my thinking.
There is voter fraud, period. The percentage of people who commit this is negligible to the point where statisticians say there is none. Period. On this information the left believes this amount of fraud doesn't constitute a change in current laws. Are you with me?
Mass murders by semi-automatic rifles happen, period. Using the same argument, the people who commit this is negligible to the point where it falls in line with what statisticians would say there is none. With me?
Now, can you see where I have issues? It is even less likely for someone to commit murder with a rifle on a massive scale than it is for someone to fraudulently vote. Does shooting kindergartners tug at your heart strings? Absolutely. But use logic over emotion. You are willing to legislate over 313,000,000 people because of the actions of 10 people in a 15 year period but not disenfranchise 5,000,000 to preserve the integrity of the vote which in G. W. Bush's case would lead to a couple wars and kill thousands of people? What if your claims of voter fraud stuck back in 2004, Gore would have been President and perhaps millions of people may be dead.
See what happens when you have these large bills, they are filled with PORK.
AndresTM - Your Gallup link is much better, it takes out the garbage that makes polls skewed. Apparently the Democrat lawmakers listen to their constituents just as good as the Republican lawmakers.
Pathetic. Incumbents must be voted out.
AmericanGirl: What do you call someone who comments 8 times one the same subject? One who loves to hear herself talk or a jerk?
Instead of doing what they are supposed to do and use the House passed budget as a negotiating starting point, Harry Reid and the Democrats will simply stick it in a drawer and not even allow it to come up for any debate/negotiations. How the liberals can say this is the Republicans' fault is beyond me. So they do not like the budget passed by the House, the Democrats are free to come up with their own counter-proposal and then start negotiations to meet somewhere in the middle. The problem is that the Republicans have been putting something on paper to start with while the Democrats simply criticize the Republican plan without putting anything down in paper of their own to counter it. Even young kids learn that if you are going to criticize something you should have an alternative to put forward. Simply saying something is no good with reasons and a counter-proposal gets you nowhere.
More of the usual Republicants scumbag lies/talking points. How quickly they forget says "Deficits don't matter" They only get on their high horse when they think it will gain them political points. Stop the corporate tax cuts, stop shipping our jobs overseas so we will actually have revenue being produced here, stop giving unfunded tax breaks to billionaires, stop running wars off the books and making the next administration pay for them and stop all your right wing lies, we are tired of hearing them
TO: American Girl-724855 who wrote:
Please post a link backing up the what you state as a fact, that "the entire country has already rejected." If you are basing your opinion on the fact Obama was re-elected, can you post the link showing where he received all the votes? Or are you of the opinion that garnering just over 50% of the votes now means the entire country? Just trying to figure out how hypocritical you are going to be when the shoe is on the other foot.
Taking trips is not foreign to obama. He is very well versed at taking trips. What would be foreign to him would be to produce a budget plan.
Every time I get on here and read the comments on dam near ANY article, things always seem to break down into name calling back and forth between dems and Rebulicans. At this rate, it won't be long before The United States is no longer united. The funny part on that is that it will end up being split, not between North and South, but instead betwwen Coast and Midwest. Look at the maps and you wil see that the states that do nothing for this country, i.e develop anything, be it food, iol or other "base" goods but spend the most, are all blue. Where as the backbone of this country,the "midwestern" states, where generally the working, middle class of this country live, are all red.
I for one am tired of all this division, lies and back and forth. I read where "Mr President" said that with this sequester/furlough, is going to cost people 5-10% fo their income. Now if that was spread out over a year, I could possibly get behind that. However, most middle class people live month to month and must plan, even a vacation, months in advance just to come up with the extra income. With the sequester, though, this is is going to cost most federal workers/taxpayers a 20 percent reduction in pay, which I foresee turning into bankrupcies and foreclosures across the country.
Ah the "anti-anything-Obama-does" crew is out in full (ignorant) force making myopic, facile and inane arguments that reflect their lack of understanding of budgetary procedures, basic US government civics and facts.
FACT - The white house has a budget for 2013 but since you don't hear about it on Rush Limpballs, Sham Hannity, Faux opinion channel, Glenn "idiot" Beck, etc. than it does NOT exist.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
AmericanGirl: You seem to know all the answers, so why can we not just live with the revenue we have now? Why should I (yes me) who makes less than $100K a year pay more in 2013 when I have not done anything different. Go Republicans! BTW, not trying to personally attack you but to me, your comments represent your icon perfectly, a dumb drugged out blond.
I'm guessing that probably has to do with Fiscal Year 2014 not starting until September 2013. The President has already submitted the budget for 2013 (which can be found on the Government Printing Office website). As is the case with so many people, the President's Budget and Democrat's inability to get a Budget through the Senate are two completely separate things. The Democrats do not answer to, nor are they required to vote in favor of the President's anything, regardless of party affiliation.
A fractious party should be something the Republican's are used to by now, however the Democrats have been this way for years. As the old saying goes, Republicans fight Democrats, Democrats fight Democrats.
@DingleB: Whoops my bad, it was due in February, I see what you're saying. Though, apparently it will be out on April 8th, according to the Office of the President. Additionally, they stated it would be late because of the end of year tax/spending cut debates, as well as the across the board cuts that just occurred.
Sorry for the confusion.
notlib - And all we get from the lamestream media is only the wonderful things tha obummer has done. Which begs the question - if it such a great budget plan why didn't the congress get to see it? Uncle Hairy never even brought it before obummer's own party. Could it be because they knew the dems wouldn't pass it?
Looks like American Girl is trying to take Feisty's place. Same old liberal hogwash though. What ever happened to us Kennedy Democrats? The kind that asked what they could do for our country as opposed to what our country could do for us. American Girl could care less about the debt this country is laying on our future generations. She thinks there is no need to make changes to our entitlements. Got that bailout intellect. She's a taker folks. President Kennedy would not recognize his party as it exists today.
notliborcon
After all that you link to a statement about his 2013 budget proposal?? We are operating on continuing resolutions, not on a budget.
B Murphy
There's a lot to it. The federal fiscal year begins October 1st, and we are in FY 2013. FY 2014 begins 10/1/13 and the budget proposal for FY 2014 is due from the pres. every year in February. The whole budgeting process has sort of been thrown out the window though because we've gone without congress ever being able to agree on something. So we've become a regime of contiuning resolutions. That's part of the reason we keep going from one manufactured financial crisis to another. It's hindering the financial recovery because people have little faith in our government.
TO: American Girl-724855 who wrote:
Please post a link backing up the what you state as a fact, that "the entire country has already rejected." If you are basing your opinion on the fact Obama was re-elected, can you post the link showing where he received all the votes? Or are you of the opinion that garnering just over 50% of the votes now means the entire country? Just trying to figure out how hypocritical you are going to be when the shoe is on the other foot.
Still waiting for those links American Girl, and while your at it how about providing some links to the votes taken on the Obama budget proposals? I would ask for Senate Democrats but they haven't passed a budget for years, come to think of it they never even gave one of Obama's budget so much as a single vote in favor. Following your lead it would seem the entire country has rejected every Obama budget.
TO: Rick-3416939 who wrote:
["American Girl-724855 wrote: ""Republicans are attempting to write a "budget" for the entire country, which the entire country has already rejected."]
What do you think the "budget" applies to? And this country runs on "majority rules", and President Obama won. Republicans "claim" that Bush won by a mere 527 votes, whereas President Obama won by millions.
Let's see, the House has to pass a vote on a budget; the Senate has to pass a vote on it; and the President of the United States has to sign it.
You think all this budget stuff is going on just for your tiny town or something?
I think this "budget" refers to the United States Budget, not just a "budget" for Alabama porch monkeys.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/21/house-passes-gop-budget-bill/#ixzz2ODXm9Qqh
Republicans, still hammering away at the poor while the GOP continues to throw money at the wealthy.
Ruck the Fepublicans and Bea-Taggers, you're time has passed and nobody likes you....how about some whine with your cheese?? wa-wa-wa-wa, call the wambulance, before the tea-publicans pick you're pockets!! LOSERS
Why don't the Democrats present A BUDGET? OOP sorry I had an idea!
Actually, the left ISN'T doing that. The only Democrats proposing a notoriously liberal budget are the House Democrats, aka the minority. A majority party ought to propose something realistic, like the Senate Democrats did (50-50 deficit reduction, fair and balanced in my book). Ryan's budget is not a starting point; it's an ideological stance. How the hell are you supposed to negotiate the repeal of the ACA and the privatization (yes, privatization) of Medicare when the American people rejected those ideas last year?? It's okay to stick with your principles; it's not okay to put those principles ahead of the desires of the people.
No; we decry any attempt to balance our budgets on the back of the poor, the sick, and the elderly while giving the rich another bribe to "grow the economy." We all know that the rich don't create jobs; the only difference is that Republicans are either empirically insane or devoted to keeping the lie that rich people create jobs going for as long as possible.
Not really; people don't necessarily live within their incomes when paying for a home; they have to pay mortgage payments on loans (akin to our interest payments for massive investments). They have to pay interest for student loans for higher education, plus they often supplement their income with credit cards to get by.
No; corporations rely on credit lines and bank loans to keep their doors open. Small businesses and startups rely on seed capital from investors and venture capitalists to get their businesses rolling, and then they pay back their investments via equity and/or royalties. It is a well-known fact in economics that individuals and corporations don't balance their budgets every year; they, just like the government, have to deal with extenuating circumstances like major factory closes or recessions (just like, surprise surprise, the government).
No, we liberals don't think that inflation is a solution to our debt problem (in fact, it would make things worse). But we just don't believe that (A) deficit reduction should take place when the economy is still weak and (B) that the entire burden of deficit reduction should be placed on the backs of those who can least afford to bear it, aka the poor and the elderly. If you want deficit reduction now, you have to deal with the two major problems with our budget; our inefficient tax code and the social programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) driving up spending. That means tax hikes AND entitlement reform; you can't solve the deficit any other way without both.
Same old fatal bill that will end Medicare for most future seniors by privatizing it. Private insurance companies have proven before Medicare started that they will not take on the massive liabilities of all the age-related diseases and conditions of seniors. Private insurance priced seniors out of the market before, and they would again eventually price most seniors out of the market with exorbitantly high premiums beyond what the voucher would cover, leaving most seniors uninsured and broke and send healthcare costs sky rocketing even more with their unpaid bills.
The Ryan bill will end the ACA instead of trying to fix its flaws, leaving 50 million and an ever-growing number of uninsured, whose unpaid medical bills will continue to lead to massive healthcare inflation costs in this country until healthcare becomes unaffordable for most and/or almost nonexistent.
It also again would implement the Ryan policy of starving poor children and the old and weak to pay for the debt and war costs by cutting programs for the poor and not raising taxes to pay for the massive war debt and other debt.
American Girl-724855 wrote:
So what you are saying American Girl is that you cannot back up your statement that the entire country has already rejected the Republican budget? Nice of you to bring up majority rules, because in the House that means the Republicans, in the Senate that means the Democrats, so where is your majority again? Yes Obama won, but he can only sign laws passed by Congress or veto them. Obama has no power to pass laws on his own. Although he does feel he should be able too. So maybe you should read up on how Congress works, and what sort of majority it really takes to actually get your way. Then you can enlighten the rest of the liberals that also bloviate on this site with no clue how Congress works either.
Morgs74, hate to point out the obvious, but the Constitution REQUIRES A BUDGET EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Haven't had one since BHO took office.
It just wouldn't do to actually have a document that spells out exactly where the money goes. Gotta hide the truth because the truth leads back to INSANE SPENDING, 40 percent of which is BORROWED!!!!
Where will it stall? The "Party of No" has PASSED actual budgets in the House each year, as required by the Constitution. Stall mode has happened at the desk of Harry Reid, D-NV.
Party of No? How 'bout the Party of "destroy my country? HELL NO!!"
Morgs ...
WTF? With you? You jump from voter fraud to mass murders??? Uhh... take those ADD meds and get back to me when you can focus on the topic at hand.
B Murphy: Don't buy into GOP nonsense that no Democrats support Obama budgets. Most do but simply refuse to play GOP games and vote on a budget Republicans vow to block. If Democrats refuse to vote on a budget it's recorded as a no even though most support it.
The third time will not be the *charm* for Lyin Ryan's
budgetgimmick!Pumping up his tired old ideas on steroids is not considered responsible governing by anyone with an IQ higher then a turnip!
Thank GAWD it will never see the Presidents desk!
I wonder will the House TeaPeople be proud enough to talk the specifics of the Ryan Path to Austerity while they are in their Districts over the Easter break.
Be Proud of their vote to destroy safety net programs......
Oh, but wait......the cynicism! Ryan knows that his Path to Austerity will never see the light of day, he's depending on it.........
When Obama actually gets off his a$$ and presents a realistic budget proposal, please let us all know !
Obama has never met a spending proposal he didn't like or a tax he didn't want to raise !!
Thank goodness we have Peppermint Patty's bill to fall back on. You know the one that double counts, forgets some simple math, and basically just increases taxes and spends more money we will have to borrow. But maybe when you haven't done a budget in over four years, the odds of getting it right aren't very good.
FRH
However I'm certain that you will welcome with open arms any budget produced by the Democrats. (mark that day on the calender) Providing that it raises tax's, does not curb spending, and screws the private sector.
The left do not live in reality. If "entitlements" are not addressed they will become nothing more than tax revenue programs for the govt. Access to them will be curtailed and services watered down.
100 trillion in unfunded mandates. Our children will be slaves.
Paul Ryan titled his latest
budget proposalpolitical manifesto The Path To Prosperity – A Responsible, Balanced Budget. After reviewing it in detail I found it neither responsible or balanced, and just like his last two budgets the numbers do not add up.Take a look at his budget and do the math: His specific tax cuts reduce revenue by $5.7 trillion, and he proposes an additional $500 billion in defense spending.
Let’s be generous and say there are around $2 trillion in specific spending cuts (including the $700 billion in Medicare savings from Obamacare). That leaves a ‘gap’ of over $4 trillion.
This ‘gap’ would have to be covered by Ryan’s unspecified tax reforms and unspecified spending cuts that will somehow magically transform this $4 trillion deficit increase into a deficit reduction.
So that's the Ryan Budget formula - reduce taxes on the wealthy, change Medicare into a voucher system, cut spending on lower-income families and college students, repeal Obamacare….
……ignore logic, common-sense, and the rules of mathematics, and you have a Balanced Budget!
Paul Ryan - The Deficit? I Built That!
Republicans are beginning to look like real crazies! Presenting their same old fail policies over and over again, and hoping for a different result.
The GOP needs to know that President Obama works for the American People and he's not going to sign any paper, not matter what the GOP calls it, that the American People have overwhelmingly rejected!!!
Not qestioning your economic skills but it has been shown in the past that cutting taxes has led to increased tax revenue. More than once.
Want to increase tax revenue and job growth? Cut the corporate tax to zero. Watch the companies flock to America.
What does the Republicans in the House do, besides passing crap that never happens?
TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:
What a tickle!
Republican George "Curveball" Bush never presented one single "realistic budget proposal" in his entire 8 years in office, and we know that because Republicans never presented a "budget" which including spending on either the War in Afghanistan OR that Lie Called the War in Iraq, which was just fine with Republicans.
This entire argument Republicans are trying to make over a "budget" is specious.
A lot of that has to do with the senile old coot who heads the senate. A man long past his ability to be deliberative.
Repeal the seventeenth amendment and end the fiasco that has become the senate.
Simple Theory
A comprehensive study on tax rates by the Congressional Research Service shows NO correlation between lower tax rates and economic growth.
Their findings (emphasis added)?
Sorry if I'm unimpressed with what the CRS has to say. Perhaps if Thomas L. Hungerford wasn't a Democratic Party operative...
http://freebeacon.com/a-failure-to-disclose/
(yawn)
The treasury reports dating back 100 years demonstrate that every time taxes were lowered revenues to the treasury increased.
Should I dig up reports and articles which contradict the CRS report. There are thousands of them.
Another thing. The whole economic pie thing. This is the fallacy which the left embraces. Our ecomnomy is not a pie which limits the number of pieces so that the participants may eventually do without. It is one designed to grow, the more participants the better because the more wealth created.
Cutting taxes has lead to increased tax revenue, in the same way that fire extinguishers start fires.
It's the old math principle that says subtraction causes addition.
We have had the lowest tax rates for twelve years now in anybody on this blogs lifetime, so why are we not rolling in dough, if we pursue that theory then a zero tax rate should produce maximum revenue.
It's utter nonsense, simple theory.
American companies do not leave because of taxes they leave for slave wages, how do you explain BMW, Toyota, and all the other foreign companies manufacturing here , they have no problem with our taxes. BMW comes here to use Americans as cheap labor, because auto workers in their plants in Germany make a hell of a lot more in wages and benefits than they pay in the right to work for less and less and less states they set up shop in. If our taxes were so oppressive why are they here, they are here for good but yet cheap labor.
No Forrest. This is nonsense and void of reality:
Here, if the words are too difficult to understand it has easy to read bar charts from the Treasury.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/101712-629790-data-debunk-deficit-exploding-tax-cuts-myth.htm?p=full
Right to work states and non-union. What does that tell you?
It tells me what I told you already the Germans and Japanese come here for cheap labor, they have no fear of our tax rates, that cheap labor is also why 9 of the top 10 welfare states (as measured by what they pay in federal taxes and receive back in federal welfare) are solid republican voting right to work for less and less, and less states. The median income in Texas is $11.20 an hour I made more than that in 1982 as a union grocery clerk plus benefits. Union members that make decent pay owe federal taxes people that make $11.20 an hour do not, people that have health insurance do not use the ER as a clinic leaving those with insurance or medicaid to pick up the tab, people who make good union pay do not depend on food stamps to feed their families, people that have negotiated pensions plans do not depend solely on SS and medicare in their old age. The US government is subsidizing foreign and domestic corporations by picking up the tab on the difference between what it costs to live and the low level of wages, benefits, and taxes they pay. You want entitlement reform you want welfare brought under control, start paying some decent wages and benefits, instead of promoting the entirely silly notion that less will somehow turn into more. Like I said if less was more then the government would have money to burn by now. Fact is the last time we had any budget surplus was when Clinton was president, taxes were higher, and incomes were on the rise. I do not need and cherry picked charts and graphs to try and prove the unprovable, I already know by simple arithmetic that less is less and more is more, subtracting does does increase a sum, less does not turn into more and if it did where is it? Where is all the extra revenue from these low taxes rates, why isn't the right to work for less and less and less states self sufficient, due to their willingness to accept less. Truth is less has just been less for them, and nobody sucks off the government teat more than them.
Sorry I tried to edit my post for some typos and punctuation errors but lost my link even though I had plenty of edit time left, is it just me or is this site been running like a rusty hamster wheel lately?
Forrest . .
It's not just you. It's been a mess the past few weeks!
No problem forrest. a little typo never killed anyone(?)
do you know the average wage of the people working at Toyota? Not too shabby.
Like most on the left, you don't understand business.
Simple Theory -
You claim the CRS is partisan, and as proof offer a link to the Free Beacon? Even then, you distorted what they reported - did you even read your own link? Thomas Hungerford is NOT a Democratic operative. Quotes from your link:
So why do they question his impartiality? Because, horror of horrors, he donated less than $6,000 to Democratic candidates in the span of over 4 years. Also from your link:
The report was commissioned by Congress, and the wording was adjusted at the Republicans request before it was approved for release.
The study uses regression analysis to determine whether there is a statistical correlation between top marginal tax rates and savings, investment or economic growth. The study found no causual relationship.
Using your pie analogy, the study proved that tax rate cuts DO NOT grow the pie, they only change the size of the pieces.
Your little bar graphs showing tax rates and revenue do not compare revenue to GDP or establish a casual relatiionship or show any statistical correlation. In fact, the only established correlation is between revenues and GDP growth.
Simple Theory -
That is a ridiculous comment.
I could claim that most on the Right don't understand mathematics, statistics, or the basic principles of econonomics but that would be unfair.
I do think conservatives are more likely to ignore facts and data that don't support their policies or beliefs.
I appreciate the leeway on my poor spelling and punctuation, I usually like to tighten up my posts as best as I can.
It is not simply a matter of wages, it is also a matter of benefits, and while some of these employers pay what seems to be an acceptable wage the employees must pay most all of their benefits leaving them with a choice of much less take home pay or going with out the benefits. I know plenty about business, I have been in the workforce for over thirty years, I have worked under union contrasts, eventually helped to negotiate those contracts with employers, I wholly owned my own business based on patents I developed, and my knowledge of the industry I brought those innovations to, and now I have a management position with an outrageously huge multinational company. I did not progress throughout my career and accomplish those things because I lack an understanding of business and how to turn a buck for my employers or myself. The truly good American businessman are those that still deliver a first class product to the customer at the low bid, make a profit for themselves, and pay a fair slice of the profit produced by their employees back to their employees in the form of wages and benefits. I understand business well enough, and I understand greed as well, and it is my firm belief that the greediest businessmen contrary to popular myth are not the best businessman. What business skill does it take to take advantage of people?
Pumping up his tired old ideas on steroids is not considered responsible governing by anyone with an IQ higher then a turnip!
---
But how would you know, Feisty? *lafs*
Yet the tea party can jump for joy that again they've presented a budget that has no chance of passing the Senate or a presidential veto. Tax cuts for the rich, gutting social programs, voucher systems for Medicare. Didn't they just lose an election on those idea's?
The Medicare "voucher system" is optional Larry ! But why tell the truth when you can distort the truth ?
Our country is $16.5 trillion in debt, and Obama has increased it from $10.8 trillion which was already too damn high ! Lefty morons continue to think the U.S. can continue to bring out the charge card while totally SCREWING future generations ! By the time Obama is finished wrecking our country's financial picture, he will have DOUBLED the accumulated debt of ALL Presidents who came before him ... combined !!!
Oops ! My bad !! In the paragraph above I actually said "Lefty morons continue to think ..." LOL ! When have they ever started ????
A slowing of spending is better than nothing. I'd prefer to see our reps sit down and eliminate the waste which the GAO has identified.
Repeal the seventeenth amendment and a lot of the do-nothing goes away.
Simple Theory
I agree, but sometimes the best way to get an agency to eliminate waste is by forcing them to make do with less, cut their budgets.
Or eliminate them entirely. Let's get rid of the TSA first and then move on to DHS. The possibilities are almost endless.
TSA is a proven joke..how many gov agencies do we [U.S. citizens] in the name of security?
FBI
DEA
CIA
NSA
TSA
ATF
US MARSHALLS
do you feel safer?
I just wish the stupid terrorists instead of having a shoe bomber would have had a bra bomber, now that might be worth the extra time in line at the airport.
The only joke here is you disgustus, you are a bad joke. Nobody is laughing.
We are laughing at you johnnyboy ! Did you get your welfare check today ? How about your food stamps ??
St. regan and Bush 41, never visited the Jews,,and the dumbest mother faker we ever had as Potus 43, visited in his last term.
Hey right wingers,,you suck,and will al be voted out in 2014-2024
You chumps will lose the house as well
Rest in hell American TAiban
And the cult of hate and anger, the left, rears its ugly head again.
Hatred of the white people is all that holds the Democratic Party together.
Hey bulletman... Nice post, but I think you misspelled "chimps"...
Simple-theory (how appropriate)... Is that the preemptive anti-race card technique there?... Seems a little transparent when discarded first... If you want to make this conversation about colored people, I submit John Boehner as exhibit A...
Just stating the obvious. It may be a might generalized but wholly accurate.
And it's not about "colored" people, it's about the Democratic Party.
Or don't you pay attention.
wait whaaa? Lets see, more lefty's in here throw race around to justify their defence or argument...inlucing BoyBlunder exhibit B,C,D. Wasnt seeking Approval and Fisted SHlthead just yesterday talking about how the Right wishes they can own 'colored' people.
Interesting how Fisty and Seeking were whining about how the Right lives in the past but fail to realize that being owned in todays Vernacular is what is stated above.
Example, Simple Theory just OWNED Boy Blunder
TO: Simple Theory who wrote:
Not all "white people" are Republican and, according to Republicans, the Republican Party is a "mix of races", or would you care to admit that the Republican Party has become nothing more than a "hate group" since the election, and re-election, of America's 1st Black President.
caesar augustus PIZZA PIZZA
Smitty-4183671
Hey @!$%#ty long time no see...so you dont disagree with my assessment..BTW do you LIKE my Avatar?
caesar augustus Shoot your avatar its so blurry I can't make anything out. I'm sure if I can't make out what it is no one else can. But I'm sure you feel real proud of that blurry and all. What is your assessment? Is your assessment calling people names?
I like your avatar CA, it's a good picture of you, pretty fancy duds, much better than an old white toga.
Forrest Grump How can you make anything out? Its so blurry. I thought the toga worked better for him.
Well like I said Smitty it is a good likeness, CA is kind of blurry so I assumed that is why the pic is kind of blurry! Ha!
Ryan is a puke,,
Typical lib contribution ! Nothing of value to offer, only the usual nasty comments !!
Nice comeback Nimmy-Jumbers... Maybe the only one republicans will see for years though!... Calling Ryan a puke is technically accurate, but could also mean that he's fresh puke, which is misleading. He is stale puke, left where it landed to dry initially and later harvested for recycling by the party that stinks of it and still has no better idea.
chickbinder,
So you are in favor of increasing spending $1T while driving up the deficit without any posibility of a balanced budget?
funnygirl -
Where did you get those numbers from? President Obama's budget proposals and the Democratic Budget both reduce the defict.
Paul Ryan's fanstasy budget does not have any serious chance of balancing the budget - it is based on poor math, faulty logic, and political impossiblity.
chickie is in favor of making name calling his only contribution !
Ryan offers budgets .... Bam-Bam plays golf ! Under Obama, our country has gone without a budget his entire FIRST TERM of office ! That is historical ineptitude by Obama !
Analyze the proposal from the Progressives dude! The numbers are there, not in some liberal talking points article.
Wasteful spending radio report this morning: Our taxpayer dollars, $3.8M was spent by our government to fund a study of interaction of human/elephants. This year, $1.5 additional dollars are allocated to further this grant.
How many WH tours could have been made with this funding? Why is this study necessary?
I have to agree with Speaker Boehner in that there is no imminent debt crisis.
I did analyze the proposals. There are targeted spending increases that are offset by revenue increases. Net result is a DECREASE in the deficit, not an increase as you claim.
Even if you don't agree with it, at least the Democratic proposal is detailed and adheres to the laws of mathematics.
I don't know, ask Paul Ryan and the Republicans who control the House where the spending bills start.
At least most Democrats are honest about their attempts to stimulate the economy.
I’m sure most of you BIG GOVERNMENT loving Libbies will go apoplectic when you read this.
Read it slowly a few times so you truly understand what is being told to you.
Government auditors spent five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
Now, read it again.
Do you understand what it means? Probably not because it ELIMINATES any argument you may have about our criminal government being out of control.
Nearly 25% of your own sacrosanct and worshipped upon social programs DON’T DO ANYTHING FOR THE POPULATIONS THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE!!!!!!
Anyone with any common sense can see that we can easily cut these programs and save $123 BILLION ANNUALLY AND NO ONE WILL BE AFFECTED!!!!
Please notice I even provided links so you Libbies don’t think I made these numbers up. I also understand most of you are incapable of researching ANYTHING on your own, you just parrot whatever propaganda Barrack Hussein, Debbie Whatsername Slutz or Gay Carney tell you to.
Also notice that all of these come from reputable sources, YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
Your own government is telling you, and the criminals in our government, where, how much and how to fix much of our massive WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE AND CORRUPTION!
Yet you, Barrack Hussein, the complicit Liberal lamestream media are catatonic about cutting a mere $85 BILLION dollars from our bloated ineffective and unsustainable government in the sequester.
According to Barrack Hussein Armageddon will be the end of us all!
Poor children, disabled children, ALL THE CHILDREN WILL DIE!!!!!
Schools will shut down! Teachers will be living in the streets! Schools will crumble from lack of maintenance! Police, firefighters and first responders will be powerless! Our borders will be invaded by more illegal’s! Ships won’t ever be built again! Our armed forces will be defenseless! Seniors will be forced to live under bridges and eat dog food! Social Security payments will be stopped. MILLIONS OF AMERICAN’S will lose their jobs! Women will lose their free contraceptives! Gays won’t be allowed to marry! Barrack Hussein and Moochelle may not be able to vacation, golf or be on the Oscars ever again!!!!!!!!
All because of $85 BILLION!!!
OHHHHHHH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!
The total for the above examples of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption adds up to $1.303 TRILLION ANNUALLY!!!!!
Assuming that half of these may be due to overlap ( a liberal assumption in our overgrown government), this still amounts to $651.5 BILLION ANNUALLY!!!!!
Even if you take HALF of this amount it still amounts to over $325.75 BILLION!!!!
This is $3.2575 TRILLION over 10 years!
But of course no one on the Democratic side can find a paltry $85 Billion, a mere 2.3% of our total unsustainable budget, to cut because YOU DON’T WANT TO!!!! You believe the incessant and irrational fear-mongering that he keeps campaigning on.
When will you demand that Barrack Hussein STOPS campaigning to keep you in squalor and start governing for the good of our great Republic.
You all have your heads so far up Barrack Husseins a$$ that you can see out his mouth. You believe anything this statist tells you because none of you contribute to our nations prosperity. You just want to leach off the successful and ambitious among us who still have some pride, self-esteem and honor.
You have all been so indoctrinated by your dysfunctional parents, peers and educators you no longer have any common sense. Everything you advocate is based on emotions rather than policy. You refuse to accept the fact that government is the problem because that makes YOU THE PROBLEM!!!!
Doesn’t it bother you that Barrack Hussein never tells you that you can be successful? Doesn’t it bother you that the best he promises you is to be middle class? Doesn’t it bother you that the leader of the most prosperous nation in history demands you be satisfied with mediocrity?
Doesn’t it bother you that he makes you insignificant?
It’s so sad for us real Americans to see so many of you submit so easily to his “Bread and Circuses”. His denigration of your ability to be what you want to be rather than what he wants you to be must be so difficult.
Barrack Hussein doesn’t want you to achieve the American Dream, he wants you to feel worthless so he can keep promising you the Shangri-La that no one person can guarantee anyone. This has been going on for decades. Liberals/Progressives keep pouring good money after bad with promises of hope and change, yet you never get there.
Tens of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS have been spent on our “social wars” against crime, drugs, poverty and illiteracy yet we have more than ever today. That’s because it’s nothing more than an illusion. It’s propaganda to keep you chained to the Liberal/Progressive plantation that is only interested in your vote, not your welfare.
The worst thing is, none of these, or any other facts, will change your mind because you have been so brainwashed into believing that someone else can make you something only you can become by taking more money from those that have succeeded.
Class warfare, envy, self-pity and mediocrity has been so ingrained in you that you feel only some bureaucrat--who never met you, and you never met them—can help you. As he and all his cronies become wealthy, you just cling to the false notion of hope and change.
We real Americans will pray for you, but only you can become what you really are capable of becoming.
God Bless and help America, you may be our only real hope for change.
Sorry Vik ...
You're not a "real" American. You're a President hater. Period.
Well you gonna answer or are you playing the 'screaming girl in the May Day sack race' thingy you rail about?
vikvega to much coffee this morning?
Layton,
What's your definition of a "real" American?
vikvega,
Spot on! Unfortunately above the reading and comprehension level of most libbies, OR they refuse to except it, as Layton and Smitty already have.
@Caesar, I didn't expect chickbinder to answer my query, other than project some form of liberal rant in response.
LIberals appear to refuse logic and fact when presented. But how about the Obama picks? Much reporting on them but nothing on why his budget is late.
Hi Thetotas, every American citizen is a real American, the term "real American" has no meaning and is just used mainly by republicans and even some of their candidates as a way to insult others who do not agree with them. In my opinion the use of the phrase has been incredibly damaging to the republican party, and only serves to further alienate those whom they must win over, if they wish to win more elections. Claiming that you are a "Real American" which implies others who disagree with you are not is politically damn silly. A lot of harsh words can be traded back and forth but when you claim somebody is not a real American you have committed political blasphemy, you would think some of their high priced political advisers, word smiths, and spin masters would have clued them in on that by now. You can expect that from people getting worked up on a political blog, but I have heard it come out of the mouths of republican candidates, and pundits and just have to marvel at just how damn stupid it is politically. Once you throw that insult out, even if you have some valid points, the person on the receiving end of the insult no longer cares what you have to say, they are against you, why would they ever vote for someone who does not even acknowledge them as being an American. Hope all is well with you Thetotas.
the totas, and also for funnygirl2 . . .
That's the thing you guys just cannot understand. Liberals don't run around labeling everyone or pretending to make definitions up for the rest of the country that aren't like us.
I don't have a definition for you and never will. The problem is that people like Vik do and you agree with him.
I seriously wonder if either of you would want to sit down and enjoy a meal and conversation with someone who thinks that way about their country. I could not.
Layton,
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but read your own posts, or those of Fisty or Insanity to see labeling on a daily basis.
Vik spoke his belief and yes, I do agree with him. So with your post you are labeling me. Can't we have differing opinions from you and your libbie friends? Nothing wrong with that is there, or are you advocating those who do differ with you should be vilified?
Hey, several of my family members are so far left they make Fisty seem normal. But we do sit and have conversations without the need to vilify each other. The same can't be seen on FR.
funnygirl2 . . .
You can disagree with me at will. Feisty, Seeking, and I are all different people. We are friends but we have our own views and thoughts.
Regarding Vik and his post, why don't you enlighten me as to what you (and Vik) seem to think real Americans are as that was your issue.
I take umbrage at one that spouts complete nonsense about the President and presents it as fact.
I advocated nothing and you know I didn't. I put his "real" in quotes and firmly stated I was not going to try and define what cannot be defined.
Carry on. You should change your avatar. You might be taken a bit more seriously.
No White House tours could have been made with this funding. Sadly, posters love to fling inflammatory comments around here - but rarely do the work necessary to back up their raving rants. So funnygirl, much like all your other baseless posts, again, I'm helping you out.
Oh, and for those interested in the grant to save African Elephants,
I'd say we are getting off cheap. The government is only spending $1.5m to save the African elephant. Old Sheldon A. spent around $150m to put an elephant in the White House and failed miserably.
No one should have expected to see budget for the previous four years. It wouldn't have mattered. Due to the recession, tax receipts were down and all the federal income was spent before it came in. Entitlements and debt maintenance ate up all revenue.
But now that we have more taxes and a tepid recovery, revenue is near, if not at, an all time high; how about a budget?
If revenue is indeed at new high level and we still have a large annual shortfall; we can agree we have a spending problem.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Your point of the recession throwing a wrench into the works is valid but that is exactly why we needed a budget.
The President has submitted a budget and that is a fact. It's a little shell game being played by the Republicans concerning the budget. Here are the facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/senate-budget-jeff-sessions_n_1522643.html
jobs, he's previously submitted budget requests, late, and didn't receive one vote on it, nothing even from his party.
For this budget, he's late, again!
Haven't you been reading the news on this, or do you simply refuse to accept truth?
The budget will not pass the Senate and will not ever see the president's desk, but it's a starting point in a budget negotiation. Time for a counter offer from the left.
The counteroffer is already on the table. Senator Murray submitted her budget a couple of days ago.
But it hasn't been voted on yet. If it passes the senate, it won't pass the house, just like Ryan's budget passed the house but won't pass the senate. Then we'll go into FY 2014 on a regime of continuing resolutions. We know how this works now.
The counteroffer that Senator Murray submitted, resulted in $700 Billion being cut from the deficit over the next 10 years. The other $1.2 Trillion included in that offer was to offset the Sequester, which since it is already in effect, they have to find a way to make it so that it isn't across-the-board and that requires $1.2 Trillion reduction in deficit spending...
Patty Murray's offering never balances the budget. Surprise ! Surprise !! Surprise !!!
Well there you have it. Two budgets. Now compromise. You don't need to vote on them before you start the compromise.
Compromise ? Does that include the TWO tax increases already brought about under Obama ??
First, Obama raises taxes on the wealthy through Obamacare, AND again on the middle class by destroying valid medical deductions for all citizens who pay taxes !
Second, Obama got rate increase on the "wealthy" as part of the fiscal cliff deal !
Republicans have ALREADY "compromised" ... now it is time for Dems to step up and CUT EXPENSES as part of the deal they agreed to, unless, of course they lied yet again !
Paul Ryan's budget cannot be considered a starting point in a negotiation when the bulk of its deficit reduction is based on mythological savings from a theoretical repeal of Obamacare.
How can it be a serious proposal when the foundation of the budget is based on legislatively undoing all the signature accomplishments of the Obama administration and invalidating the results of the last election?
How can you counter-offer a fantasy budget based on sketchy math and politically impossible actions? "I'll see your Unicorn and raise you two Leprauchans".
Jim
Hogwash! The tax increase in Obamacare affects only those individuals whose AGI is over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. Plus the tax is only 3.8% on INVESTMENT INCOME. The fiscal cliff deal only put the tax rate on the wealthy up to where it was under Clinton, when the economy was booming and we weren't running deficits. Seemed to work out just fine.
Where have you been? The GOP hasn't compromised on anything. And the voters saw that, and voted for the President to remain in office. Hello?
TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:
Paul Ryan's fantasy "budget" wouldn't balance the budget for 10 years, and when "reality" is applied to the Ryan "budget" it wouldn't ever balance either.
The last time the "budget" was actually "balanced" was when Democrat President Bill Clinton was in office and he balanced it.
TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:
Republicans love to call other people "liars" but are never able to identify the "lies".
I'd like to know where you got the part where you say: "Obama raises taxes ... on the middle class by destroying valid medical deductions for all citizens who pay taxes !"
What is that?
I haven't heard anything about anyone "destroying valid medical deductions for all citizens who pay taxes".
Where did that come from?
As far as making "cuts" goes, the President has been doing exactly that, to the screams of the GOP who keep howling that they don't want any of the cuts made.
You can't have it both ways Republicans.
Well, T, if that "signature accomplishment" blows the budget, then it should be addressed. We should not be married to such ideals as his "signature accomlishment". We should be negotiating in good faith to find a solution.
Okay, AG, where's the O man's balanced budget?
Geez ! What an opportunity, two BIMBOS telling me I am wrong about Obamacare obviously DON'T KNOW $HIT about what the bill includes !! LOl !!
This is where I should borrow a famous line from Dan Akroyd in "Point/Counterpoint" many years ago:
Dee you ignorant $l_t ! Obamacare also raises taxes on earned income for "the wealthy"by .9% as well ! That increase, coupled WITH the fiscal cliff deal means taxes could be HIGHER on the wealthy (who already pay the lion's burden of tax) than during the Clinton years !
Oh, and forth both of you "geniuses" there are a number of items in Obamacare that can and do raise taxes on ALL Americans by eliminating medical deductions !
For "American Girl" with the dumb blonde avatar: The AGI floor has been raised form 7.5% to 10% on medical deductions ... meaning Americans with lots of medical expenses are now DENIED a deduction and get to pay more in taxes !
There is an excise tax of 2.9% on medical devices which raises the cost of those medical devices to the manufacturer and possibly to the consumer as well.
There is an excise tax on tanning salons of 10%. I am not sure how this racially discriminatory provision became part of the law.
The maximum amount put into a medical reimbursement arrangement under a cafeteria plan has now been reduced ... thereby INCREASING taxes on all who use these plans.
Rules have been tightened on HSA accounts and you can no longer pay for over-the-counter meds from these plans.
These are but a FEW of the sneaky little tax increases embedded and hidden in Obamacare. But then again, you "LADIES" would actually have to get up off your a$$e$ and READ the damn bill to understand what in the hell you are talking about !!
Do you clowns know how to read ?
Come on media-get it right. There is no spending cut. It's simply slowing the rate of spending INCREASES. If you doubt it, go the CBO website and you will see that spending has increased year after year after year. This will end badly for all but the rich.
Let me guess. Ryan's budget repeals Obamacare. Dead on arrival. This is what, the 50th or 60th time the house has voted to repeal Obamacare. What a pack of idiots. Next.
The only "IDIOTS' out there marky, are the morons who voted for this hor$e$hit legislation without ever reading it ! Our country simply cannot afford another government mis-managed bureaucratic program !! Our country needs to fix Medicare and Social Security now, before biting off something else to f_ck up !!
Our country is in debt up to its proverbial a$$ ... so Democratic philosohy is to spend more money we don't have !
Isn't a balanced approach much more attractive? Instead of JUST cutting spending, let's raise some revenue. Raise taxes on the people who can afford it, and don't punish the people who can least afford it. It's only common sense. It's also called compromise.
Taxes have ALREADY been raised twice ! Hint: You'll have to read the bill that is called Obamacare.
No, that is a right wing
liemyth.Jim
I know what's in Obamacare. Read my post 7.8. Tells you all about the facts of tax increases in Obamacare.
Bottom line is Obama Care is here to stay.
DEE, You obviously do NOT know what is in Obamacare .... many medical deductions have been effectively reduced or eliminated. There are additional excise taxes on medical devices and also on tanning salons. The amount one can plan to put in a qualified medical reimbursement plan has been reduced.
Read the damn bill and quit lying/demonstrating your ignorance ... it is IN THERE !!
The Ryan budget will go no where once again, it will never pass the senate, and if i did the president could veto it and there is enough votes for it in the house or the senate to override a veto. More wasted time on an attempt to try and give more tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the old and sick, knowing full well the electorate has resoundingly rejected this plan every time it is presented. If republicans in the house continue to play this game I predict even Gerrymandering will not save their majority in 2014. Ryan and others in the house are beating their hard heads against a political brick wall, they could not sell that nonsense in a single swing state, the only demographic they have any pull with is old people and medicare is surely the one thing that demographic continually tells them to keep their hands off.
Write republicans in the house an email and ask them if they are going to give you a rebate for all the medicare taxes you have paid for years when they turn it into a voucher system. Cut me a check for all my taxes I paid into medicare, then you may tamper with it.
sorry I meant to say there are not enough votes to override a veto, if it should come to that but it won't.
So much for the RNC autopsy, the house just doubled down with policy of the republican candidates that lost, as the republican party continues to defy the will of the electorate on many issues, and push their ideology and agenda for special interests they will continue to lose elections. Some republicans in the house may feel safe in their Gerrymandered little districts, but their is a growing resentment of the republican party as whole, and many republican candidates at all levels will pay the political price for the actions of republican house members.
I know I sound cynical, but I truly think the politicians in the Republican Party are working for their corporate masters these days, not anything as insignificant as you and me. They are implementing, or attempting to, the will of the likes of the Koch Brothers and other filthy rich patrons.
@Amy
You are so hung up on this corporate thing. I guess you'll feel better with the George Soros' and the Michael Bloombergs of the world leading you by the nose and telling you how to live life. Also, I notice that only rich conservatives seem to get under your skin. Gotta wonder.
Well Amy whomever they are listening too it is not the general electorate, and they are paying the political price, the good news is that no matter your net worth your vote counts the same on election day. The wealthy can buy votes in Congress but that can't buy the individual votes of the American people, the American electorate has sent many of them packing, and will send more of those types packing in 2014. When the electorate decides they are no longer representing them they are out of there, and no amount of money can save them. Remember your vote and the vote of a Koch brother is of equal value on election day, and that is the essence and beauty of America.
So Ryan keeps pushing the voucher program......
Good to see he's earning the insurance lobby money he gets.
His voucher system was voted down by the American people last November.
That's bull$hit !
It's not BS Jim republicans lost the oval office, the senate, and seats in the house, the American people are not buying what they continue to try and sell. The Ryan budget will not get support from republicans in the senate, they have to win statewide elections and cannot depend on a Gerrymandered district to win their seat, and the Ryan budget is a huge problem for them for being on record as voting for. Ryan and Romney could not carry a single swing state, to highlight thier policy yet again is political suicide for the republican party as a whole, democrats will make more gains in 2014. If Boehner does not reign in his house and produce some bills that the electorate is in favor of he may have to hand that gavel back to Nancy. In any event the Oval office and the senate will be out of reach for the republican party, because as I said they run in more general elections and can't count on protected little districts.
So true, Ryan is sealing his future, as never going to be elected to a higher office.
So Forrest Grump, in your SIMPLETON mindset .... you are saying the election was ONLY about the OPTIONAL voucher system and that one issue alone !?? You just flunked your logic course ! Is that what you are saying ... that NO OTHER issue came into play at all ????????????????????
By the way genius, Republicans did not control the Senate before this last election .... maybe a self-appointed scholar like yourself could explain how they "LOST" something they didn't "HAVE"
Ha Jim you seem all upset there buddy, I did not state republicans lost on a single issue, they lost on host of issues and lost a host of demographics. I never claimed to be a genius or a scholar, but I am no simpleton, I am actually quite innovative and have several US Utility Patents. and even if you think of me as a simpleton, and wish to insult me as such, I take great comfort in being on the winning side. I will agree I should have said lost more seats in the senate and not lost the senate , the main point being they lost, right Jim. Let me clear Jim so I don't sound like a simpleton to you, republicans Lost the presidential election, they Lost more senate seats, and they Lost seats in the house, are we good with that wording now, are you calming down some.
They should go with Senator Rand Paul's budget plan, it balances the budget in 5 years.
While many liberals/progressives will call it "draconian", it sends a lot of the powers of government back to the states where they belong. The 10th Ammendment was included in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and the government has been infringing upon it for several decades.
It creates a flat tax rate of 17% for all Americans, and all Americans have a standard deduction of $50,000. Which means, if you make $100,000 or less, the most you can pay in income tax to the federal government is $8,500. If you make $50,000 or less, you don't pay income taxes. It's absolutely revolutionary and probably the best chance that America has to bring propserity back to America.
I seriously recommend actually reading his proposals before making any determinations on how "draconian" it is. The government needs serious reform, and the further we push it off, the more it will hurt when we actually work on reforming it. While it will hurt now to reform certain programs, the longer we wait, the worst it will get.
Based off the President's and even the Senate's budget, by 2025, we will reach the point where it will be nearly impossible to pay down our debt, because interest on that debt will be so high that the only way to pay it off would be to mass-print money, which will only destroy the economy and this nation.
It would eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid and the drug benefits. No thanks.
It would be the biggest income tax cut for the wealthy this country has ever known.
I just read an article in Forbes Magazine, not exactly a liberal rag, that says the Ryan budget creates a 5.7 trillion hole by extending more tax cuts to the wealthy. Republicans seem to think the United States of America exists solely to provide 1% of the population with every toy, house, and car elevator they could ever desire - and the elderly and middle class are completely expendable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2013/03/19/paul-ryans-budget-fact-fiction-and-the-hole-the-house-gop-has-put-itself-in/
So marky, now you want to see how many lies you can throw out at one time ?
17% would represent a tax hike for the wealthy in this nation, that will never fly with the republican party establishment.
Stack. Only one thing matters in business, reputation. That is what is lacking from Ryan's budget. The same Republican policies are finally being changed by Obama and the Democrats after 7 years. Government voted themselves unlimited power to spend after we elected them. The reason we are in this mess.
If Ryan's budget was in put in place 7 years ago we would not be in this mess. His budget is behind the times. The Republicans are repairing their reputation with limited success. We need serious minded officials to change things and put government and "draconian" policies in order. The government agencies were either too weak or looking the other way when everything went to crap. When Ryan admits that what is being done is wrong and "decadent". The lets all compromise feeling and forget what was done and where the money went feeling is not acceptable. We are 16 trillion in debt. It will take about 10 years for them to spend it all.
I'm not sure what the Republican Party doesn't get. How many times are they going to vote on something the country just doesn't want? Are they tone deaf? Blind? Ignorant? Stupid? All of the above?
They get it but they take their marching orders from the Koch Brothers.
You also have a do nothing Senate, that can not even pass their own budget. You are a loser, it don't matter if you are Democrat or Republican.
The only thing that would stop the senate from passing a democratic budget is the filibuster by, who else, McConnell.
The only hold up in a compromise is the GOP refusal to cut the fat out of the tax code. We can raise 200 billion dollars a year by eliminating the tax fat. Nobody will get hurt. It won't hurt the economy. The GOP only stands in the way to protect big oil and big pharma. The only rate that will go up are on capital gains but just to the regular tax brackets. It is a win, win, win but the GOP must protect the richest at all costs.
Markin,
Please go and read Senator Rand Paul's budget proposal. None of his policies favor the rich folks and he wants to simply the tax code so that ALL Americans have an equal chance to succeed. But he also realizes that in order to give all Americans that equal chance to succeed, you also have to give all Americans an equal chance to fail as well. He wants to get rid of the subsidies to big oil, big pharmacy, most of the new major big green energy firms, all those people who own enough money to start a business themselves. He feels that if those people have the money to start a business, or have the money to try to invent something, then the government shouldn't be handing them money.
You speak about how the GOP doesn't want to increase taxes, which means you think it is a revenue problem with our government. As they spend 23-24% of GDP every year, when they only make 16-18% of GDP per year and this year, after raising taxes on the richest 1% (which actually caused the top 71% to have increased taxes), the government yearly revenue will be at the highest it has ever been and will still only amount to 19.1% of GDP.
It's not the Revenue that is the problem, it's spending. What we need to do is cap government spending at 20%...
Stack.
It IS a revenue problem!!! Could you run your household budget on cutting spending alone? Don't you need some revenue coming in?
DEE,
Are you suggesting we do what Cyprus was contemplating? "Let's just take ALL the monies!!" Yeah, that's a great idea...oh wait, nope.
Federal spending has over DOUBLED since 2002. What Paul Ryan's plan is suggesting is that we take the 2002 Federal budget and double it, then add 3.4% every year for 10 years. So instead of increasing spending yearly by 5%, he wants to make it just a 3.4% increase every year.
Yep...that means its a revenue problem, oh wait..nvm. The Economy is growing by about 2-3% per year, there is no reason for the government to increase by 5% in that same time period.
Could I cut my household budget on cutting spending alone? Yes. If I'm making $50,000 a year, while spending $65,000, I would definitely need to cut spending. I would like to increase my revenue, but that doesn't mean that I am not spending too much. What would be smart in that instance, would be to decrease spending down to the $50,000 or so, then attempt to increase revenue as much as possible.
That's how you fix the problem, not multiply it. You don't want to increase revenue which will result in the government thinking "oh look, I can spend more money", then they increase spending and ask for more revenue and the cycle continues. Just look at the past 3 months for instances of that. The Republicans agreed to increased taxes on the rich starting in 2013, while asking that the Democrats agree to reduced spending later on. We got the increased taxes, now all the Democrats want is for the Republicans to increase the taxes even more...
Stack
What Paul wants to do, whether he says so or not, is reduce the government to a bare minimum. While that sounds all well and good, it's just not feasible. We actually need the government...yeah, that's right. The GOP and Libertarian talking points are unrealistic.
Austerity doesn't work. Cypress? Look at all of Europe. Ryan takes from the poor and gives to the rich, and those are the facts, pure and simple.
Your household budget? If your making $50,000 and spending $65,000 you need to cut your spending. But my point is you have $50,000 as revenue to begin with. What if you didn't have $50,000 to begin with? What if your $50,000 was reduced to $40,000 because your boss wanted to cut his spending? Would you look for another way to get some revenue infused in your budget? You can only cut so much spending Stack....unless you want to live in your car.
What Senator Paul wants to do is make the government do what it is constitutitionally supposed to do. He wants to move programs from the Federal level back to the states and local levels where they are more easily managed and are able to provide better services. And yes, we need government. There is a difference between what Senator Paul wants, along with the other Tea Party or libertarians want and Anarchy. Anarchy doesn't work and that isn't what he's proposing.
Austerity doesn't work? Really? Do you know what Austerity means? It means "to be austere" or "to be strict in discipline" meaning "spending only the money that should be spent and not wasting money". "Austerity policies demonstrate governments' liquidity to their creditors and credit rating agencies by bringing fiscal income closer to expenditure." Meaning, make it so that you spend close to what you earn. How do you figure that that doesn't work? You think it is perfectly okay to spend the money that we don't have?
Yes, Cyprus and all of Europe is failing. Most of those countries are socialist countries who have been borrowing and spending money like crazy and are now on the verge of bankruptcy. (Sound familiar?)
And your analogy of my hypothetical boss reducing my pay from $50,000 to $40,000 is completely different than what is going on with taxes. If I got moved from full time to part time, yes I would look for an additional job to make up that time, but that is different than the government just spending more and more money to only ask its citizens to pay for it.
And I'm not sure if you understand what's going on in Cyprus. Their Banks are failing and the government went to the EU and IMF to get a loan. They told the Cypriot government that they needed to come up with 11 Billion dollars if the EU/IMF would bailout the banks. The Cypriot government's idea was to tax all deposits in the banks 6.75-10% (based on deposit amount). It was turned down, but they pushed all the paperwork to the public last Friday and planned to vote Monday morning, and it was only because the citizens found out about it that they decided postponed the vote and didn't pass it. Oh, and their banks have been closed since Friday and don't plan to open until next Tuesday.
I really want to see some examples of how Paul Ryan or Rand Paul want to destroy the poor so that they can help the rich. Rand Paul wants to make a flat income tax of 17% with a standard deduction of $50,000. So if I was making $50,000 or less, I would not be paying any income tax. If I was making $100,000 or less, the most I would pay would be $8,500. Not sure how that favors the Rich over the poor, saying that the more money you earn, the more you pay. If you make $1,000,000 you would pay $161,500 in taxes.
If you think their reforms to Medicare and Medicaid and their ideas for reforming Social Security would destroy the weak, old or poor, then you really don't understand that those policies are unsustainable and all they are working on is making a way so that those programs can be around much longer than the 2020s when they are expected to run out of money.
Here's what the Washington Monthly said in one of the articles this month:
"The UK's economy has shrunk by 0.3% in the last quarter of 2012. After enduring two recessions in the last four years, Britain is now well on its way into a third. The pain has been compounded by a seccession of austerity budgets in which the British Conservative-led government has tried to hack away at spending. Repeated rounds of cuts have battered the economy."
I could go on, but you get the picture. I know what austerity means. And time and time again it's shown it doesn't work. The bottom line, Stack, is that a B-A-L-A-N-C-E-D approach is the way to go. You absolutely cannot JUST cut spending.
You say the govt. keeps asking its citizens to pay for their spending. Here's the thing.....Rand Paul and Paul Ryan want ONLY the poor and elderly and middle class to pay for the spending. That's the problem MOST of us have with the GOP.....and that's why we didn't vote them in in November. It's not that hard to figure out. And instead of "reforming" the big 3, let's get rid of the corp. tax loopholes and the wealthy tax deductions and paying taxes on earned income, etc., etc.
Almost EVERY economist has trashed Ryan's budget. It takes from the poor and asks absolutely nothing from the rich. By the way, the Dems have already given the GOP 1.2 Trillion in cuts. As John Boehner said at the time...."I got 98% of what I wanted- I'm pretty happy"
DEE,
While you list an article about how the UK is an example of how Austerity doesn't work, there are several articles about how austerity does.
" Members of the Deficits Forever club are intellectually lazy when they assert that the U.K. economy is growing slowly because austerity doesn’t work, implying that things would be better had the spending binge continued. Maybe. But maybe not. A responsible politician wouldn’t take the gamble because the costs of being wrong are too high. Just ask the Greeks.
The real lessons for the United States are clear. Those who run up debt in good times can borrow only so much more when a recession strikes. And heavily indebted governments postpone fiscal stabilization at their peril. If you wait to reform until the bond market calls time, you are—to use a technical term from economics—screwed.
The best option is, of course, to be Switzerland, a country strangely ignored by Krugman. The Swiss have run a prudent fiscal policy throughout the economic crisis. They have had a structural surplus in each of the past five years. Their net debt is actually lower today than it was in 2005. And guess what? In 2009 their economy suffered the smallest contraction in Europe, with unemployment today below 4 percent. As for sound money, the Swiss franc is up 95 percent against the dollar since 2000."
Another example of a country who has used austerity to boost their economy would be Latvia. After being hit by the recession, they implemented some austerity cuts and in 2011 and 2012 their GDP expanded by 5%.
Or you can look at the US recession of 1920. Our president cut taxes and reduce government spending by close to 50%, which resulted in within 18 months, the US was back into the booming 20s once again and unemployment fell from over 10% to under 6%.
Up until the progressive movement, it was also the idea that during recessions, you cut government spending and cut taxes and it ALWAYS worked. Then during the progressive era, the government decided that they wanted to be more involved and that during recessions, in order to save all the citizens from any potential harm of a business failing during a recession, they started to pump tons of money into businesses in order to keep them upright, thus postponing the recession.
The Economy is not supposed to keep growing, as the government is trying to make happen, it's supposed to have the boom then peak, then dip into a recession and have another boom that will take us out of that recession. Instead, we are just trying to get rid of those recessions and continue to climb all the time.
Ryan sure loves to play with budgets that will never ever get passed.
It's like he's a child who got a budget kit for Christmas and likes to play with it.
"Mommy look.....I've built another budget"
"Great son.........That's wonderful"
You libs sure do regress to your childhood a lot when it comes to political discussions. Are there any Democratic ADULTS out there ??
I bet you Obama doesn't sign it?
Budgets passed by the House and Senate are never signed by Presidents. They are not legislation. The budgets serve as guidelines for the House and Senate Committees that draw up the 12 appropriation bills that actually fund the federal government. It is those bills that must be approved by both Houses of Congress and then signed into law by the President.
The House and Senate just passed the CR for the FY2013 appropriation bills for the remainder of this fiscal year which ends on Sept. 30th. It is that CR, when signed by Obama, that funds the government until FY2014 begins on October 1st.
Educating a radical right winger is like telling Charlie Sheen to stop using hookers and cocaine.
Neither cares.
Peter17 Your wrong and read the article would you
The House voted 318-109 with bipartisan support to pass a continuing resolution funding the government through that date, averting a government shutdown that would have occurred at the end of March if spending authority had run out. The Senate passed that legislation on Wednesday, and it now heads to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature, once he returns from a foreign trip to Israel.
Common Sense- 4 U I warned you about replying to my post and further bullying to me on here and now I am going to sue and file charges. I'll get my attornies to subpoena your account records with nbcnews they'll do an IP trace find where you live.
Common Sense . . . Great post at 16.2!
FruVegge . . .
To hell with the First Amendment for you, right? But don't touch the Second! Your paranoia SCREAMS through the screen!
Duh?
It is time to change the stakes that these republicans are willing to destroy our economy to save. Time for them to live like the rest of us. And worry about their futures like the rest of us. Then you would see a whole new attitude in Congress.
We could solve a LOT of problems in this country if we just required that politicians live by the same rules as the rest of us.
Put THEM in 401-K's and Social Security for their retirement; put THEM in Medicare; have THEM follow the same "truth in advertising" laws businesses have to follow, let THEM pay for their own vacations instead of the taxpayers sending them on junkets; have THEM obey the law on discriminatory employment practices,Make Politicians Take a Pay Cut Before Cutting Money from Education and Social Services!
Hey they should cut their own benefits and services. no more lifetime benefits for 4 years of service!
They should NOT be getting lifetime health coverage when they have the money to pay on their own!
While too many find this as some sort of virtuous sign of frugality, in fact this is a form of theft from the taxpayer. We, the People, provide Members of Congress salaries that -- while far from those of the K Street LObyist crowd -- put them at three times the average American wage, provide them free gym access (where Paul Ryan ever so loves to work on on other peoples' dimes), give them far more generous health insurance than the vast majority of their constituents have, and provide what all but the most-pampered CEO would call lavish retirement (without counting the $s from revolving door (lack of ethics) lobbying that enriches so many on leaving office)
Members of Congress sleeping in the office are thus playing on the edge to eek out even more compensation from the taxpayer. They convert use of a space -- that we have paid for -- intended for work into living space as they avoid rent.
They use resources (whether for hot plates, showers, or others) that we have to pay for in utility bills.
And, from another aspect, they hinder the economy by living in tax-free, government furnished space rather than taking their salaries to pay for living space, furniture, utilities, and other things in the private economy
Their pay should be whatever the median wage is in America for the previous year. If median wage goes down they take a pay cut, if median wage goes up, they get a raise. That way we know they will be working for us.
Arale,
I would like to point out that there was a law that was pushed in the senate to limit the number of terms that Senators and Representatives can have. It would have limited the number of terms a Senator can have to two, and the number of terms a member of the House of Representatives could have to three.
There was a pull showing that, based off what the American people wanted, it should have passed 75-21...However, it failed on a 24-75 vote with almost all (if not all) Democrats voting against it.
None of these congressmen or women are willing to give up the power they have "earned".
Republicans, mostly the Tea Party, are working on limiting the government so that the economy can thrive. They are not out there trying to destroy the economy as you suggest.
It is time to wake up and realize that it isn't the Republicans vs the Democrats, it's about the US Citizens being put up against the Government. They are turning us against one another and pushing laws that make it so that when it comes time for us to actually want to stand up to protect ourselves, we won't have the education or the capability to do it.
The world is starting to fall apart, look at Greece and the rest of Europe, even New Zealand now. Most of those socialist, welfare states are decaying and we are on a path to follow right along with them.
arale. You missed one point. The longer this gridlock continues the more power private interests collect. They are scared that if they lose the House they will be treated like the Republicans treated the Democrats during Bush's 2nd term. If they can continue this gridlock, private interests can stockpile enough of our money flowing from the printing press to stop any meaningful economic reform.
I like it arale! The only thing I would change is that they don't make the median pay of Americans, they should make the median pay and benefits of the state they represent. I would like nothing better than to tell the reps from Texas that their pay was going to be $11.20 an hour, Ha but only for the hours they actually worked.
And forgotten in all this ... especially from people who believe in Ryan's particular brand of cruelty, is the lost idea of shared sacrifice. Honestly, I think the cuts could be offset against the poor, sick and elderly by closing loopholes AND CUTTING SOME DEFENSE SPENDING. Patty's budget doesn't achieve significant reductions in spending, so we progressive's aren't happy with it, either. But, all you Obama haters on this thread, (which is your right), how can you expect us, the poor, sick and elderly, to just sit by and become poorer, while the Defense Department outfits another carrier battle group? That's not balance. It's bull@!$%#. Trim my benefits. Trim Congressional salaries. Reduce defense spending by 10 percent. Cut the president's salary to zero. (as a token gesture). Move away from excessive spending by spreading the cuts. We're addicted to spending so we need some time in the detox tank. But, 10 years, on the backs of the poor? And you guys worship this rat bastard? Send me Tom Coburn or Chris Christie and we'll talk. But Ayn Rand? We're done talking.
Everyone, Common Sense- 4U bullies a 50 year old disabled female with every post I make in an article that lives alone. Does anyone here really approve of this and do you want the person banned from nbcnews? So he is following me around to purposely bully me.
And yet every post you make is negative.
Typical hypocrite.
You know the old saying.....If you can't stand the heat......Get out of the kitchen.
Right wingers love censorship when they can't handle the truth.
Hahahahhahahahhahaha
Not me. Common Sense- 4U doesn't bully anyone. Just has an opinion.
So Job1 and Common Sense could be the same person. If you were a regular you would know he threatened me on the 12th here with physical harm. I have the proof as I showed him as he denied it.
Never threatened you with physical harm.
Sorry you live in a sad pathetic delusional world.
FruVegge,
I checked back, and I don't see any threats coming from Common Sense-4U.
Common Sense- 4U You @!$%#en lying bastard, I showed you proof just the other day that you did and I still have a copy of it and I'll post it again you @!$%#en bully. Leave me the @!$%# alone. I will file a cyber bully complaint NBCNEWS DO YOU SEE THIS WARNING.
I never saw your "proof"
We all know you are paranoid and delusional which is why you can't produce anything right now.
I never have and never will threaten physical harm to anyone.
But I certainly will call out crazy people.
Common Sense- 4U I am not playing this game with you because I'll show proof and you'll say tomorrow you didn't see it.
Go practice some of that personal responsibility FruVegge and let Common Sense practice their personal freedom.
So, either pull up your granny panties and POST your supposed "proof" or SHUT THE @!$%# UP!
We're sick on your incessant whining & paranoia!
The GOP is very courageous at passing symbolic legislation.
woodbutcher I believe in order to move into the future we need to learn from the past and change accordingly it looks like were just not learning anything and repeating mistakes the same mistakes over and over, What do you think?
Fru- doesnt it bother you in the least that every prediction your side has made has NOT occurred? No country in the world that has used your reduce deficits first has had success. Explain how Perots predictions of the end is near in 1992 is any different from your predictions?
Even Boehner says we do NOT have an immediate deficit problem and ALL agree we have an employment problem.
Enough- your side from a FACTUAL basis cannot defend your positions.
Why are we cutting spending again?
demtothebone: I'm a Libertarian for one and if you were a regular here you would know that.
If House Speaker Boehner agrees with Paul Krugman that we have no immediate deficit crisis but all agree we have an EMPLOYMENT crisis then WHY are we wasting our time on Ryan's nonsense?
The GOP does nothing but waste time.
Think Randy Boy's 13 hour filibuster.
And Hagel was confirmed.
How much tax payer money was wasted on that GOP clown show?
Common- No RepubliCON(emphasis on the CON) President in the last 50 years has NOT increased the deficit.
Their "concern" about future generations is a CON
demtothebone well that's not entirely true it was raised during President George W. Bush's first term but he had 9/11 to deal with.
demtothebone - the time to deal with a debt/deficit problem is before it becomes a crisis. Greece has a debt crisis. I don't think we want to wait until only draconian solutions are available. There is nobody big enough to bail us out.
Common Sense- 4U how many times do I have to fricken tell you that I am a Libertarian not a right wing republican you brainless twit. You have to tell us how old you are.
The US is not Greece.
There is a balance between debt and growth that every economist not on the fox news payroll understands.
The Bush disaster is a massive problem that is being dealt with and it's working.......Albeit slowly.
Fru:whew bush had 9/11 to deal with so he cuts tax rates and for the FIRST time in our history during war we reduce govt revenues......PRICESLESS
Especially your using this as an EXCUSE- Good Grief from a spending deficit!!!!!!!!!!!
demotothebone - "Common- No RepubliCON(emphasis on the CON) President in the last 50 years has NOT increased the deficit."
~~~~~~~~~
Just to prove a point that you are misinformed. President Gerald Ford, had a 73.7 Billion dollar deficit for his first year in the presidency and brought it to a 53.7 Billion dollar deficit when he left office.
You could say that no president in the past 30 years has NOT increased the Federal Debt, that would be a true statement. While there were 'surpluses' during the Clinton years, those don't include the interest on the debt already...
And while Boehner said there is no immediate debt crisis, that doesn't mean we should ignore the debt and the deficit and that the government should continue to spend money like crazy. There needs to be reforms to the government programs so that we don't have to worry about a crisis. The path we are on currently will result in our country becoming like Greece or Cyprus or all of the other socialist welfare states that are currently failing.
Peter17- and the time to deal with an UNEMPLOYMENT problem is WHEN?
Stack- thank you for the correction. I will change my commentary to read any Republican supply side President.
Mohammed El-Erin heads Pimco Bond Co. Bonds that financial instrument that derives its value from flucuations in interest rates. He says America does NOT have a immediate deficit problem. We have an employment problem. Solve that problem and you have solved part of the deficit problem.
What is the driver of the deficit? Its Medicare(actually the largest spending item is revenue expenditures- another way of saying tax carve outs- like accelerated depreciation, etc). If our per capita medical costs were equal to the average of other advanced industrial nations we would have a BUDGET SURPLUS
But rather then tackle the driver of our problem your side just wishes to gut the social safety net and privitize govt functions so they benefit your DONOR BASE
Peter17- you often post a comment but never respond to someones response to your post? Why?
Your sides concern with the Deficit, in my opinion(with factual support), is simply a cover for your longer term political ends. The drivers of the deficit are revenue expenditures(tax carve outs) and medical. Yet when Obama runs in 08 on a platform of universal health coverage and WINS your side freaks and instead of joining in the debate of the best method your side chooses to meet on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE and devised the policy of OBSTRUCTION and a 60 vote majority requirement- all for POLITICAL purposes after running on a slogan of COUNTRY FIRST.
The deficit problem is a POLITICAL boogeyman and the TEAjerks fall for it.
Someone- explain the difference between Perot in 1992 screaming the same nonsense will happen in 1993 or no later then 1994 and it doesnt so you clowns just resurrect the same bogus BS in 2009 when your not in POLITICAL POWER.
For the third year in a row the House passes a budget that they know for a fact is DOA in the Senate. What a waste of time.
That way they can blame it on each other.
J. WM, The way it is supposed to work is the senate passes its version and then they send it to committee to work out the differences. However, the senate has never be able to pass one the past four years so noone really knows where they stand. Why isn't the senate doing anything?
I know that, the point is that Ryan is wasting time with his privatization of Medicare and tax cuts for the wealthy that have been soundly rejected over and over again.
Every time a RepubliCON(emphasis on the CON) speaks of lowering our deficit and privitising the social safety net(like vouchers for medicare) it is giving business to their DONOR BASE and raising the cost to the individual
Ryan just likes playing with his little budget kit he got for Christmas.
Must be nice running for congress in a district with all GOP voters where you can get elected and suck up to your lobbyists without having to actually solve anything.
Uh no, Ryan is in a swing district in Wisconsin with more Demoncats than Repubs in it, but the voters really like him, so he keeps getting elected anyway.
Common Sense- 4U is a cyber bully people. You wanted a fight by always attacking me well you now have one. Fair play is fair play. Just remember I have a CCW and I will protect myself.