• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

1. hr1, the republican house budget, was passed MONTHS AGO

2. the senate since has done SQUAT

3. the president, however, has---he put forth his 2012 budget in february which RAISES the deficit TWENTY PERCENT over awful '11

4. the house BUDGET CHAIR is now on record---four to six TRILLION dollars in CUTS

who's leading?

who's dithering?

who's punting?

who's responsible?

stay up
 

The situation isn't the White House vs. Congress. Rather, it's

The White House vs. {[(Tea Party House Republicans vs. Moderate House Republicans) vs. Progressive House Democrats] vs. [(Senate Democrats - supermajority) vs. (Senate Republicans - <filibuster for budget bills / Byrd Rule>)]}
 
Last edited:

I believe this one had a rider banning federal funds or dc funds going to abortions
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe this one had a rider banning federal funds or dc funds going to abortions
Click to expand...

AS best I could find out, that is on the compromise 6 month extension, not on this. I could be wrong, but could not find it on Thomas on this bill.
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe this one had a rider banning federal funds or dc funds going to abortions
Click to expand...

yes you're right.

However, it looks like Obama has a choice. Agree to more cuts or accept riders. I think we all know Obama would never agree to defunding abortions. That leaves him with agreeing to more cuts. If not, he will be to blame for the shut down.

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times
The House bill would extend the shutdown deadline by another week, to April 15, while funding defense needs for the rest of this year so that troops’ paychecks would not be endangered by a shutdown.
Republicans have argued that Democrats need either to accept more cuts or to accept some of those policy riders.
 
Barb's source says the rider is on the 1 week extension, so I withdraw my objection to Obama not signing it. Unlike Barb, I don't think it is Obama's fault for not signing a bill with an unrelated rider attached that is only there to make sure he does not sign the bill.
 
Here is the problem I have. Nobody is compromising. Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency. Republicans have the House. House Republicans are saying "My way or the highway". They may have won big in 2010, but seems to me that, until they also control the Senate and / or Presidency, they are in no position to hold the government hostage by making unreasonable demands. This most likely will backfire on them worse than it did when Gingrich also engineered a shut down during Clinton's administration. What makes me even madder is the Democrats knowing this, and willing to let the government shut down, in order to leverage it to increase their own political power. Congresscritters are scum bags. I don't care if they have a D or an R after their name. They are all scum bags.
 

My God I think I actually agree with Obama on something!!!! Is the sky falling?

We need long term resolutions...not bandaid crap that has been the staple for both sides for the past decade at the very least.
 
This is a good power play.
 

Give it time. This is a large battle.
 

At least the Reps didn't put on their running shoes and leave town.
 



My way or the highway, came straight out of Steny Hoyer's mouth tonight on Special Report. Also, what the hell is unreasonable about cutting 70 billion from 1.5 trillion? Now don't give me the Obama line about demo's agreeing to that either, if they were honest at all, agreeing to not spend some 30 billion is not cutting anything.


j-mac
 
I just looked up the riders on HR 1. It has zero chance of ever getting through the senate or signed with these riders, and it was asinine to put them there.

Powered by Google Docs


In other words, HR 1 is bull****.

Edit: note that this is about 5 % of the total riders.
 
Last edited:

Why would you NOT consider politics when making long-term budget decisions? If the Democrats lose funding for their promises like healthcare, then they're screwed. If Democrats get funding for promises like healthcare, then Republicans are screwed for missing an opportunity to do what they promised.

Long-term budgets determine which policies succeed and fail - it would irresponsible to not "play politics" in making this decision.
 
Speaker Boehner is caught between the old republicans and the tea party members.
 
Redress; the first time I clicked on your link, I could not get it to load for me. So this duplicates your post in case anyone else has the same problem. It is obvious that this is what is called in politics a "poison pill" which is intended to foilo passage of anything but simply play politics.

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf

as you can well see, this has precious little to do with cutting funds from the budget.
 
Last edited:

I strongly disagree. I find it irresponsible not to put America first.
 
Why not take the money from the bloated defence budget?
 
danarhea said:
I strongly disagree. I find it irresponsible not to put America first.
Click to expand...

That is what pisses me off. If they wanted to, both sides could have reached a compromise. How hard is it to take two numbers, add them together, divide by 2 and say look, a compromise?
 
danarhea said:
I strongly disagree. I find it irresponsible not to put America first.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in most ways I'd say, both parties think that they are putting America first. For example, the Democrats think that their Healthcare plan is good for America and yet the Republicans have not yet budged on pretty much defunding it entirely in their proposal. By getting rid of healthcare funding in a long-term budget proposal, the Dems have to give a way a fundamental aspect of their plan for doing what they think is best for the U.S.. The Republicans feel the same way about their provisions.

It's the same general problem that we always face - both have different ideas of what the United States needs.
 
Redress said:
That is what pisses me off. If they wanted to, both sides could have reached a compromise. How hard is it to take two numbers, add them together, divide by 2 and say look, a compromise?
Click to expand...

That is 100% spot on. But the extensive list of GOP policy riders make it clear and without any doubt that much of this is NOT about budgets or saving money. Its about politics and shutting down the government because they believe it somehow advances a particular political agenda as they mistakenly believed two decades ago.
 
the cr which passed boehner's house this morning doesn't touch obamacare


House budget bill: House passes measure with $12 billion in cuts - latimes.com

the highest profile riders contained in the cr concern mountain top mining (targeting jay rockefeller and joe manchin), dc abortion funding and dc vouchers

Senate Dems craft short-term stopgap - On Congress - POLITICO.com

the president has threatened to VETO it

i wouldn't be so sure, tho, the challenged chief exec changes his mind an awful lot

anyway, if the dems want to kill it, let em

it's certainly their prerogative

meanwhile, try to maintain your dignity

or we'll getcha on civility too

take care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…