Reply With Quote
"could usher in new era of cooperation."
no! tea baggers, and probably most of the other House Repugs, will vote against.
this freezes/caps govt spending, locks in sequestration, when MORE GOVT SPENDING is required to stimulate growth and jobs.
U.S. budget deal could usher in new era of cooperation.
(Reuters) - A bipartisan budget deal announced in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday, though modest in its spending cuts, would end three years of impasse and fiscal instability in Washington that culminated in October with a partial government shutdown.
While praised by the Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the agreement faces a challenge from some House conservatives and will require support of the minority Democrats to pass.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9B918L20131211
"could usher in new era of cooperation."
no! tea baggers, and probably most of the other House Repugs, will vote against.
this freezes/caps govt spending, locks in sequestration, when MORE GOVT SPENDING is required to stimulate growth and jobs.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-11-2013 at 10:26 AM.
$10Bs in tax expenditures benefiting the UCA preserved
long-term unemployed screwed
That's how the corrupt corporatocracy rolls: "all for us, none for y'all"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-11-2013 at 10:21 AM.
Federal budget deal faces test in House
But some tea party conservatives would prefer to live with those reductions, however painful, to keep down government spending.
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, like Ryan a potential GOP presidential contender in 2016, opposed the deal.
"This budget continues Washington's irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in," Rubio said, adding that the American people "deserve better."
But the accord did little to placate leading conservative groups, who attacked the deal even before its details were announced.
"We're going to hold them accountable if they go back on sequester," said Tim Phillips, president of the conservative Americans for Prosperity, backed by the billionaire Koch brothers. "The message is simple: Keep your word."
"There's a real concern about giving up the sequester," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), saying he would be disinclined to back such a deal. "Republicans know that the one major victory they had was the sequester."
unclear whether Boehner could pick up enough Democratic support. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the progressive caucus, said he opposed any deal that failed to close corporate tax loopholes.
Democrats should reject the deal because it failed to include an unemployment insurance extension. "Negotiators have declared 'War on Christmas,' and potentially sentenced millions of struggling Americans to a very bleak New Year," he said.
cuts to retirement benefits would be a "hold your nose and vote yes" compromise.
Pressure on Republican senators was coming not only from conservative groups, including Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, but from conservative candidates who are challenging in bents in 2014 primary races.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-78504869/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-11-2013 at 09:50 AM.
I'm pretty sure I remember Boehner standing in front of a sign that read Obamaquester as he tried to tie that Ridiculous piece of legislation to Obama. Now the tee bags are mad that it's being reversed. Gotta love the republican messaging machine.
A Cruel, Irresponsible and Dysfunctional Budget Deal
But the agreement does not address the crises that matter. “This plan won't create jobs, get the economy back on track, or meaningfully cut the deficit,” explains Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.
And that's not the worst of it.
What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who – with a fully ensian twist – now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?
The budget agreement does not look like a “step in the right direction” for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week – as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess – many of the most economically vulnerable Americans will be “lurching from crisis to crisis” very soon.
Their crisis is our crisis. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, extending benefits for the long-term unemployed would boost a still slow economy by two-tenths of a percent in the coming year – creating 200,000 needed jobs. As the CBO explains: “Recipients of the additional benefits would increase their spending on consumer goods and services. That increase in aggregate demand would encourage businesses to boost production and hire more workers than they otherwise would, particularly given the expected slack in the capital and labor markets.”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177550...l-budget-deal#
both parties agree on kicking the poor and unfortunate in the teeth at Christmastime. bipartisan!
You miss a key distinction. Only one party believes that kicking the poor and unfortunate in the teeth at christmastime is the right and moral thing to do, for their own benefit of course.
lemme guess, I'm supposed to cut some slack for the party that does it for political expedience.
We are in trouble when both sides agree about spending money...
Just saying...
actually, it seems worse when Congress can't keep its own deadlines.
Not content to leave things in the hands of their own group, the Kochs also flexed their muscles in letters sent to members of Congress by Koch Industries, the privately owned conglomerate in which the brothers are principals. According to the Washington Post, the letters “call[ed] the deal ‘a dangerous retreat from the pledge to “live within our means”‘ made when the sequester was adopted in the summer of 2011.”
Reuters added that the letters “urged Congress in a letter to stick to the $967 billion spending cap set under the sequester,” reporting this quote:
“It is essential if our country is to achieve economic prosperity once again. It is also the right thing to do,” wrote Philip Ellender, the head of Koch Industries’ government and public affairs arm.
Americans for Prosperity can make life difficult for Republicans seeking re-election in 2014 by helping to launch primary challenges to sitting members of Congress. Other right-wing groups, including FreedomWorks and Heritage Action (now led by former Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]) have also denounced the deal, according to Politico.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...thers-seething
Cut them slack or don't cut them slack. Makes no difference to me. I was simply pointing out what I consider to be an important ideological distinction.
im glad in a way because something had to be done but now this gives these knuckleheads more time to focus on illegal be@ner reform
The means suddenly justify the end?
I don't think so. The results do not provide any delineation of ideologies
What do you mean by the means justify the end, in this regard? We're talking about extending long-term unemployment benefits here. Democrats wanted them extended and included in the budget deal, the republicans didn't. That's an important distinction regardless of whether the democrats ultimately refused to blow up the budget deal without the extension.
Lets be sure and send some of the "wants" to the unemployed when the bennies expire. I'm sure they'll come in handy.
I want a great many things from a legislative position. Too bad I cant vote on stuff in Congress.
You can pretend it's not an important policy distinction all you want, but I damn sure know which party I wouldn't be voting for if I were one of those long term unemployed.
No Farm Bill in Sight as Recess Looms for Congress
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/12...om=us.politics
The deal would more than double the existing so-called “9/11 Aviation Security Fee” from $2.50 per flight segment to $5.60.
Doubling the fees to $5.00 — $10.00 for a return trip — would generate $13 billion over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/u-s-budg...air-travelers/
a head tax, highly regressive
For all the good it will do...wants vs political expediency. Your moral shading, in this particular instance, is functionally meritless. Proof, pudding, and all that.
The art of compromise is now functionally meritless? The deal scales back cuts to the NSF and NIH, and more importantly, temporarily puts an end to the budget brinkmanship that paralyzed DC for the last 4 years. Not a bad thing with or without the extension of long-term unemployment benefits.
lol. No matter what they "compromise" they are never going to cut anything and they know it. Pretending they are just shows how stupid Boner thinks everyone is. And we get a regressive tax hike on traveling too. wonderful!
Business as usual has its advantages and its drawbacks, but the ostensible normality is comforting. Perhaps Congress is sensitive to its historic unpopularity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
