Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: House defeats Republican spending plan

  1. #31
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by vvx View Post
    Rather, I think they feel it sets bad precedent to tie emergency funding to spending cuts.
    actually this is fantastic precedence. otherwise everything simply has the word "emergency" attached to it, and any pretence at fiscal sanity once again is out the window.

    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...
    that would have been fantastic - and I am among those who criticize the Bush Administration for not doing so.

  2. #32
    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
    actually this is fantastic precedence. otherwise everything simply has the word "emergency" attached to it, and any pretence at fiscal sanity once again is out the window.



    that would have been fantastic - and I am among those who criticize the Bush Administration for not doing so.
    I suppose another way to look at it, since spending cuts aren't the only way to achieve this, what if after 9/11 Bush had demanded tax increases equal to the money spent on the wars?

  3. #33
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    So the House passed the bill, and now Reid will block it apparently.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #34
    Sage

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

    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.
    Allow me to clarify...
    In addition, House Republican leaders are insisting that the $1 billion in immediate disaster funding be offset with $1.5 billion in cuts to a loan program that helps automakers retool their operations to make more fuel-efficient cars.
    The program in question is the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan program. I'm sure Demacrats liked the overall structure of the CR as approved by the House; they just don't like that Republicans are trying to fund disaster relief by making cuts to a program that has consistently come under attack at their hands.

    According to congressional Democrats, they claim that the ATVM program* has created jobs AND has helped to slow the nation's dependency on oil - foreign or domestic.

    *(Clink on the link "See history of LPO" under "HISTORY" content or click on the interactive map for details on how LPO projects are progressing in your state.)

    A little perspective...

    Fuel efficiency ratings on new cars are the highest they've been in years and under new fuel mileage standards recently enacted by President Obama, the fuel efficient of passenger cars will increase still further by 2016. If the U.S. auto industry makes the shift in improved fuel efficiency standards, U.S. cars will achieve the best fuel mileage standards they've been since...the Carter Administration? That's a long time to wait for fuel efficient car that gets over 20-25 mpg highway or city. And with gas prices currently at averaging $3.54/gal nationally and reportedly as high as $4.99/gal in some parts of CA, I'd think that Congress as a whole would be more supportive of the positive impact the ATVM is having on the overall quality of our cars. Remember: It was just 3 short years ago that two of our American automakers had filed for bankruptcy and the American auto industry was being severely dominated by foreign automakers. That's not necessarily the case now according to this 2011 survey. Toyoda and Honda still lead the pack, but their margin is decreasing.

    But ATVM's mission isn't just to push domestic passenger car fuel efficiency. It's also to advocate the use of new technology in our automobiles so that our cars become far more competitive against foreign automakers. Again, I'd think people would support that. I certainly do.

    I recently purchased a 2009 Chevy Malibu SL (reluctantly; my older van finally broke down and it was the only running vehicle I had. So, I had no choice). Not exactly a brand new model, but it performs far better than I expected. It gets nearly 25 mpg city and I'm spending the same $40/wk on a full tank of gas that use to only fill my van's tank half-way. And both me and my wife drive this car daily as oppose to it being just me driving my old van over the same 5-day work week, and we only fill the tank once a week. Mind you, I didn't want another car note, but the fuel efficiency alone will save me a ton! But I digress...

    If this wasn't about politics as Rep. Cantor states...

    No one wants to stand in the way of disaster money. There is nothing else besides politics that is going on with that move.
    ...why then would he and his fellow Republicans insist on offsetting funding from only this Dept of Energy program and not try to find cost savings anywhere else? Is it just because Sen. Reid is piggy-backing the increase to FEMA funding onto the Senate energy bill? If so, I suppose I could see the logic. However, as I mentioned in post #6, since both the President and Congress have declared certain areas across the country as emergency disaster areas, no emergency disaster relief funding need-be offset. Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters. And considering that diaster relief efforts under FEMA have been better compared to how things were in the wake of Hurrican Katrina, one has to ask why the political gamesmenship?

    Again, is it a matter of "we just don't have the money to pay for it?" or is it "We (Reps) are going to force you (Dems) to choose between voting for legislation that provides emergency disaster relief at the level we want versus voting disaster relief funding down to protect one of your sacrad federal agencies - DoE funding - an agency we (Reps) have been targetting for years".

    But no one's playing politics...

    Right...
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-23-11 at 01:18 PM.

  5. #35
    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
    Allow me to clarify...
    I don't care where they find the money to offset it. It must be offset. If it was me, I'd say "O.K. so what are we going to take this money from". To me, the idea what the discussion is 1 in additional spending = 1.5 dollars less somwhere else is more important than what is being cut. If you want to argue that there are better things to cut, O.K. there might be but I'm happy that we are at least having the correct discussion.

    If this wasn't about politics as Rep. Cantor states...
    Everything involves politics as to what will or won't be cut but the idea that we have to stop the deficit spending is not politics. It's reality.

    ...why then would he and his fellow Republicans insist on offsetting funding from only this Dept of Energy program and not try to find cost savings anywhere else? Is it just because Sen. Reid is piggy-backing the increase to FEMA funding onto the Senate energy bill? If so, I suppose I could see the logic. However, as I mentioned in post #6, since both the President and Congress have declared certain areas across the country as emergency disaster areas, no emergency disaster relief funding need-be offset. Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters. And considering that diaster relief efforts under FEMA have been better compared to how things were in the wake of Hurrican Katrina, one has to ask why the political gamesmenship?
    Cut. I do not care that it has never been done before. It has to be done now. Argue over what needs cut. That's what they are supposed to do. Just agree to the cuts before spending more money. No program is more important than the big picture of getting the debt under control.

    Again, is it a matter of "we just don't have the money to pay for it?" or is it "We (Reps) are going to force you (Dems) to choose between voting for legislation that provides emergency disaster relief at the level we want versus voting disaster relief funding down to protect one of your sacrad federal agencies - DoE funding - an agency we (Reps) have been targetting for years".
    I don't care. If the Dems refuse to fund something that the GOP wants unless we agree to cuts in the military, I'm all for that also.

    But no one's playing politics...

    Right...
    What one wants funded or not will always be politics. I'm O.K. with that as long as the cuts are made.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 09-23-11 at 03:07 PM.

  6. #36
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,008

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Wait, the Democratic controlled Senate said “No” to the House budget. The party that never met a tax dollar it couldn’t spend, is saying no to keeping the federal govt. funded. I thought it was those dirty Republicans that was saying no. Seems the Dems didn't like the reduced spending in federal loans to startup eco companies. Like the one Obama backed that filed for bankrupcy.

    Yet somehow I know on this forum someone will find a way to say its the Republicans fault.

    Senate Blocks House Disaster Aid Bill - ABC News
    The Democratic-led Senate blocked a House bill Friday that would provide disaster aid and keep government agencies open, escalating the parties' latest showdown over spending and highlighting the raw partisan rift that has festered all year.
    Last edited by mike2810; 09-23-11 at 06:15 PM.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  7. #37
    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 1Perry View Post
    Cut. I do not care that it has never been done before. It has to be done now. Argue over what needs cut. That's what they are supposed to do. Just agree to the cuts before spending more money. No program is more important than the big picture of getting the debt under control.
    So the concern is keeping debt under control is it? Well, I guess, if you insist, we could tack a tax raise onto the bill. That'd do the trick.

  8. #38
    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 vvx View Post
    So the concern is keeping debt under control is it? Well, I guess, if you insist, we could tack a tax raise onto the bill. That'd do the trick.
    No, the campaign promise they ran on and won their seat was on the arguement that there will be no tax increases without tax cuts. They did not run on the idea of the government, taking and spending more and more.

    That does nothing for the deficit.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 09-23-11 at 08:27 PM.

  9. #39
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice
    Moreover, it's never been done before when our nation has been faced with natural disasters.

    Actually it turns out to have been fairly common. prior to 2002.


    Remember back in the debt ceiling debate? Remember how evil government shutdowns are? Poor people starving in the streets, old people unable to get healthcare, businesses that work with the government shutting down, fire and brimstone raining from the sky etc?


    yeah, that's what Democrats are apparently threatning to do in order to protect more companies like Solyndra. Good job, fools.
    Last edited by cpwill; 09-23-11 at 08:37 PM.

  10. #40
    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 1Perry View Post
    No, the campaign promise they ran on and won their seat was on the arguement that there will be no tax increases without tax cuts. They did not run on the idea of the government, taking and spending more and more.

    That does nothing for the deficit.
    I don't see how it does anything for the deficit either way. If the proposed spending is $100, either a cut in spending of $100 or an increase in taxes of $100 will result in $0 net change in the deficit. So what's your point, what's the deficit gotta do with the tax increase?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •