I think this was a brilliant move by Republicans as it proves that Dems are more concerned about tax increases than mitigating the impact of the sequester on our economy. They've been effectively cornered into showing their true colors.I can answer #59 for you. If Obama takes that plan and then has to decide on where the cuts go then the Republicans who would not compromise on making any kind of deal get the best of both worlds. They can say that they blocked the tax increases made the gov't more efficient and can blame the president when the people affected by the sequester comes to them. I thought that would be obvious to anyone when it was first suggested.
See Post #52 regarding both Senate votes.One other point to make and this one is towards Doc Savage. The Senate actually took up 2 bills today for a vote one which was the republican which I believe you mentioned, which could only get I think 38 votes. The other bill which was democrats got 51 votes but again due to the senate rules needs 60 to overcome a filibuster so did not pass. The house on the other hand has not passed any bills this session to address offsetting the sequester. In point of fact Boener wont even bring up the Democrat one for a vote.
I think we have a disconnect here. What is the argument I'm making from your perspective?
If Obama's plan is so good....why didn't Senate Democrats vote for the Republican proposal to give Obama control to decide where the cuts should be made?
Agree. But he would get full control in mitigating the impact of the spending cuts on our economy. He just wouldn't be able to use this as a vehicle to raise taxes again. He would have to compromise on that point. Oh the irony of it all.you've basically equated the two plans. but the republican plan to have the executive pick which agencies receive the 85 billion in cuts but not reduce the cuts is not the same as the obama plan.
I think this was a brilliant move by Republicans as it proves that Dems are more concerned about tax increases than mitigating the impact of the sequester on our economy. They've been effectively cornered into showing their true colors.
It's a rare day that Republicans outmaneuver Democrats in the game of politics. It will be interesting to see how the media covers this.
If you think we cant afford sequestration, How can we afford to buy back billions in bonds?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...130228?feedType=RSS&feedName=bondsNews&rpc=43
Feb 28 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve plans to buy about $45 billion of longer-dated Treasuries in 18 operations through March as part of its latest economic stimulus efforts, the New York Fed said on its website on Thursday.
Are they just printing this money on a copy machine or what?
No paying more in taxes isn't a tax cut.. But all the bush tax cuts were to sunset. And the push instead was to extend only the tax cuts on the middle class and poor and just let the upper levels expire. Essentially they passed tax cuts for the middle class and poor. And allowing the other tax cuts to sunset as they were designed to. Keep in mind I am being sarcastic when I say they were designed to.. Having them sunset in the first place was just a political gimmick..
Considering the budget must originate from the house, I wonder why a budget hasn't been passed?
http://budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/
Surely it's not because the budget proposed by the house isn't garbage or because it was thoroughly rejected by the American people?
That can't be. It's gotta be the fault of the uncompromising democrats.
You mean this budget?
http://m.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
Sorry, I'd have to assume you mean the 2014 budget which looks to be delayed. But again, the presidents budget is just a guideline and republicans have been pretty keen on not follow it at all so why would having a White House budget matter?
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ding-plan-said-to-be-delayed-until-march.html
Oh and I'm still waiting for that sequestration counter proposal the republicans have, do you have a link?
Not sure what your definition is of a "political gimmick".
But I would disagree. The Budget Reconciliation Process (designed by Robert Byrd) is used to pass budget/tax bills through the Senate. Use of the Budget Reconciliation Process ("BRP") enables a simple majority vote - meaning no filibuster is possible. However, under the rules of the BRP any bill passed under it must expire/sunset in no later than 10 years.
That's why the Bush tax cuts expired in 10 years. It was passed under the BRP.
Fern
Dems got $600 billion in taxes increases or a temporary reduction in taxes was left to expire? What good are tax increases if the increases can be avoided? What harm is there in asking for closing loopholes when republicans said they would be for closing loopholes?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...6960_1_loopholes-tax-cuts-payroll-tax-holiday
I'm still waiting for the "balanced" republican offer to be presented, do you have a link for that?
The House has always passed a budget.
The Senate has never brought up a House budget for vote. Nor has the Senate ever passed a budget of its own.
The President has a responsibility to submit a budget. Obama has submitted a budget every year IIRC. (Albeit, sometimes late.)
However, Obama's budget has never passed the Senate. IIRC, they've voted on every one Obama's submitted, but none failed to get even a single vote in the Senate.
Fern
Not sure what your definition is of "balanced", but the House Repubs have already passed two bills (last year IIRC) to avoid sequestration.
I'm also not sure why it must balanced, assuming that means tax increases.
If it does mean tax increases and/or elimination of loopholes, you're basically looking at tax reform. That usually takes a couple of years to work out. There isn't enough time for that. We've also just recently had a tax increase. I see no reason why that should be revisited again so soon.
Fern
And why did they pass it using BRP? Why wouldn't they pass it the normal way? I'm sure there were no politics involved in process.
And why did his budgets fail? Did the senate vote on what he actually proposed or did they vote on something they called "Obamas budget" but it didn't look anything like his budget?
They voted for something in last years congress, they can't use that for this new congress.
Just quit letting businesses and corporations claim business expenses. That should increase their taxes a bit. Why do I have to pay for Business expenses?
My understanding was that they were straight up votes on Obama's budgets as originally submitted.
The Senate has never put together or proposed a budget itself. I.e., there's never been an opportunity for them to slap Obama's name on something they created.
Fern
That's incorrect. I don't have the specifics in front of me but one budget was called Obamas budget but it was so vague it was pointless, another budget was considered DOA because Obama already had a different budget on the table.
The issue is the minority currently rules, republicans have learned that they will either get their way or nothing will happen. When compromising in Washington isn't an option then we have problems. This country was built on compromise and has moved forward because of compromises and now we are stuck.
Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate
President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Coupled with the House’s rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama’s budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.
Just quit letting businesses and corporations claim business expenses. That should increase their taxes a bit. Why do I have to pay for Business expenses?
Are you brain damaged? Seriously. Have you had severe head trauma?
So basically they are being treated the way liberals wish they could treat all businesses?
I mean individuals cannot write those things off, so why should businesses be able to
They were offering to give complete control to him! What more do you want?!?!
That's incorrect. I don't have the specifics in front of me but one budget was called Obamas budget but it was so vague it was pointless, another budget was considered DOA because Obama already had a different budget on the table.
The issue is the minority currently rules, republicans have learned that they will either get their way or nothing will happen. When compromising in Washington isn't an option then we have problems. This country was built on compromise and has moved forward because of compromises and now we are stuck.
If you're going to say something is incorrect, you should at least make an effort to back up your statements with links.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/
Democrats disputed that it was actually the presidents plan, arguing that the slim amendment didnt actually match Mr. Obamas budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the presidents numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Are you right up kidding me? How the hell does the Republican minority rule the Senate? It's not like they need a 60-40 vote to pass the budget.
Did you find any Obama budget numbers that didn't match the budget numbers voted on in the Senate?How does that dispute what I said?
Did you compare the two budgets? I did and one was serious and consisted of about 70 pages the other had no details and was about 20 pages.
Thanks for providing my proof for the information I didn't have in front of me