Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: House defeats Republican spending plan

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    lets have MORE fun with semantics!

    or not. It does bore me so.

    The simple fact is it wont work for Obama to tout this sudden spirit of cooperation when it is the democrats that joined the Tea Party vote against the spending bill. The Tea Party republicans have maintained a consistent position on fiscal accountability, both during the spending cap debate and during this spending legislation. In this instance it is the democrats playing politics.
    Not only that, they joined them for different reasons. Not enough deficit spending.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why does voting your belief with regard to fiscal constraint have to be considered being 'in bed' with anyone? Its a pretty sad state of affairs that the only acceptable norm is voting for or against a party. Why bother having a congress at all? Just let party headquarters make decisions and whover gets the most votes in elections gets to make the decisions for the next two years. Then, instead of wasting all that time messing with yucky debates and policies and votes, etc they could spend full time dedicated to running for reelection.
    I know your commentary wasn't addressed to me, but I'll like to reply anyway.

    At odds here where disaster relief spending is concerned is: 1) spending under the GOP House budget versus what the law dictates (see my post #6 for precise details), and 2) politics as usual.

    Rep. Cantor said the following in the Politico.com article I linked to above (post #6):

    No one wants to stand in the way of disaster money. There is nothing else besides politics that is going on with that move.
    By "that move," Cantor is referring to Sen. Reid attaching the increase in disaster spending to the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill. But not only has Cantor repeated his stance that disaster relief spending must be off-set by spending cuts, he's also stated that the defeat of the CR is a function of changing the culture in DC.

    From this Politico.com article:

    We are focused on trying to change the way business is done in Washington. Change like this is hard. We'll find a way forward so that we can reflect the expectations the taxpayers have that we're going to begin to start spending their money more prudently.
    To that I say, it's a noble idea but where disaster relief is concerned how about spending in accordance with the law that was passed just last month? Again, see my post #6 for details.

    For those who support Rep. Cantor and the Tea Party (as well as all others who voted against this measure), the question you should be asking is:

    "Was voting down the spending measure and standing by their priciples the right thing to do or should they have voted in accordance with the law?"
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-22-11 at 07:08 PM.

  3. #23
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,613

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I know your commentary wasn't addressed to me, but I'll like to reply anyway.

    At odds here where disaster relief spending is concerned is: 1) spending under the GOP House budget versus what the law dictates (see my post #6 for precise details), and 2) politics as usual.

    Rep. Cantor said the following in the Politico.com article I linked to above (post #6):



    By "that move," Cantor is referring to Sen. Reid attaching the increase in disaster spending to the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill. But not only has Cantor repeated his stance that disaster relief spending must be off-set by spending cuts, he's also stated that the defeat of the CR is a function of changing the culture in DC.

    From this Politico.com article:



    To that I say, it's a noble idea but where disaster relief is concerned how about spending in accordance with the law that was passed just last month? Again, see my post #6 for details.

    The question for those who support Rep. Cantor and the Tea Party (as well as all others who voted against this measure) should be asking is:

    "Was voting down the spending measure and standing by their priciples the right thing to do or should they have voted in accordance with the law?"
    You may NOT address those comments...mind your business!



    Just kidding.

    I dont see Boehner as being anything more than just another partisan politician. Congress as a body is either going to have to commit to fiscal responsibility or the country will continue to spend itself into obblivion. Like the wars Bush engaged us in...you cant just ignore the cost...you have to PAY for things TODAY. The thought that both parties have, with complete disregard, saddled my grandchildren with debt they were too chicken **** to deal with flat out pisses me off. It should piss EVERYONE with children or grandchildren off. Thats not Monopoly money. Im glad the Tea PArty republicans stood their ground. I hope and pray more people on both parties end their idiotic partisan brain mapping and start doing the right things for the country. NOW.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Not only that, they joined them for different reasons. Not enough deficit spending.
    House Democrats voted down the bill NOT because they didn't like it, but rather because it cut $1.5 billion in funding from the energy Department loan program to offset disaster relief aid which they say helps to create jobs.

    From theHill.com:

    After the House vote on Wednesday, Democrats immediately called on Republicans to scrap the cut to the energy program, which they said would cost thousands of jobs.

    “This vote sent a clear message to Republicans: the American people want a bipartisan approach to running our government,” said the No. 2 House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “We should immediately pass disaster relief that meets the needs of our people and protect — not cut — programs proven to create jobs while we reduce the deficit. If Republican leaders bring a bill to the floor that honors the bipartisan agreement from August, they will find it has bipartisan support for passage.”

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    You may NOT address those comments...mind your business!



    Just kidding.

    I dont see Boehner as being anything more than just another partisan politician. Congress as a body is either going to have to commit to fiscal responsibility or the country will continue to spend itself into obblivion. Like the wars Bush engaged us in...you cant just ignore the cost...you have to PAY for things TODAY. The thought that both parties have, with complete disregard, saddled my grandchildren with debt they were too chicken **** to deal with flat out pisses me off. It should piss EVERYONE with children or grandchildren off. Thats not Monopoly money. Im glad the Tea PArty republicans stood their ground. I hope and pray more people on both parties end their idiotic partisan brain mapping and start doing the right things for the country. NOW.
    I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself does standing behind priciple always equate to adherring to the law?

    As stated previously, Tea Party Republicans along with Rep. Cantor are merely adherring to principle here. They're trying to stand behind fiscal conservatism based not on the 2011 Budget Control Act but rather by the House budget they've defined not under the guidelines set by Congress and signed into by the President.

    I'll put it this way: If as a member of Congress you claim fidelity to the Constitution, by default it means you must also follow the laws passed by Congress and enacted by the President. You don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow or create your own parameters for same.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-22-11 at 07:26 PM.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    House Democrats voted down the bill NOT because they didn't like it, but rather because it cut $1.5 billion in funding from the energy Department loan program to offset disaster relief aid which they say helps to create jobs.
    So they liked that? That out of the way, yes, that is what I said, there was not enough deficit spending.

  7. #27
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,613

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I understand where you're coming from, but ask yourself does standing behind priciple always equate to adherring to the law?

    As stated previously, Tea Party Republicans along with Rep. Cantor are merely adherring to principle here. They're trying to stand behind fiscal conservatism based not on the 2011 Budget Control Act but rather by the House budget they've defined not under the guidelines set by Congress and signed into by the President.

    I'll put it this way: If as a member of Congress you claim fidelity to the Constitution, by default it means you must also follow the laws passed by Congress and enacted by the President. You don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow or create your own parameters for same.
    If the legislation is coming up for a 'vote' then it probably is more fluid than the law states. Surely you cant be suggesting that everyone that voted against it violates the law? Why then put it up for vote? Why not just have an executive order and adopt by immediate acclamation?

    I dont mind disaster relief spending provided that it is 1-what is required and 2-paid for.

  8. #28
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    so.... what i'm seeing here is... Democrats are willing to cut emergency relief spending if it means saving crony capitalism for the green industry?


    got it.

  9. #29
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    11-15-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    802

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    so.... what i'm seeing here is... Democrats are willing to cut emergency relief spending if it means saving crony capitalism for the green industry?


    got it.
    Rather, I think they feel it sets bad precedent to tie emergency funding to spending cuts. It's not so important what specific spending cuts are involved. Imagine if after 9/11 we had demanded spending cuts equal to the money spent on the wars...
    Last edited by vvx; 09-22-11 at 11:54 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    So they liked that? That out of the way, yes, that is what I said, there was not enough deficit spending.
    That's correct, there is not anywhere NEAR enough deficit spending to haul our asses out of this economic malaise. Worrying about short-term spending now is like fretting about drought when you're trying to put out a forest fire.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •