Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: House defeats Republican spending plan

  1. #1
    200M yrs of experience
    Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeastern USA
    Last Seen
    05-07-12 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,166

    House defeats Republican spending plan

    House defeats Republican spending plan - CNN.com

    The vote was 195-230, with 48 Republicans joining all but a handful of minority Democrats in opposing the short-term spending plan ....
    Could it be that some members of the GOP have realized that voting with the Tea Party members in the House is endangering their party?
    I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was wedding between the religious fundamentalists and political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. ~ Billy Graham in Parade magazine February 1, 1981.

  2. #2
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    House defeats Republican spending plan - CNN.com

    Could it be that some members of the GOP have realized that voting with the Tea Party members in the House is endangering their party?
    OHMIGOSH!!!! Tea Party Republicans didnt mindlessly vote with their party? Thats TERRIBLE! Can you IMAGINE what would happen if EVERY congressman actually voted based on their core values and for their constituency instead of blindly voting along party lines? Tragic!!!

  3. #3
    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 VanceMack View Post
    OHMIGOSH!!!! Tea Party Republicans didnt mindlessly vote with their party? Thats TERRIBLE! Can you IMAGINE what would happen if EVERY congressman actually voted based on their core values and for their constituency instead of blindly voting along party lines? Tragic!!!
    Actually, I think the implication wasn't that some tea party republicans voted against a republican bill, but that some republicans voted against a tea party republican bill. But your point is good, none the less.

  4. #4
    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

    This is a deficit producing bill. No more deficit spending.

  5. #5
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    House defeats Republican spending plan - CNN.com

    Could it be that some members of the GOP have realized that voting with the Tea Party members in the House is endangering their party?
    Or being in the same bed with the Democrats makes the Tea Party unrealistic.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Okay, here's what's at issue:

    At issue was a short-term bill to fund government agencies through November 18 that would allocate fewer resources to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers for disaster response than the Democratic-led Senate approved last week.

    Additional funds are needed because of recent major floods from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee along the East Coast, and wildfires in Texas that required emergency responses exceeding the amount the agencies have left in their coffers to support recovery and rebuilding efforts.

    The House measure included a total of $3.6 billion in disaster relief money -- $1 billion in emergency funds available when the bill is enacted and another $2.6 billion to be budgeted for those federal response agencies for the 2012 fiscal year that begins October 1.

    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.

    Democrats objected to cutting spending for disaster funding, calling it unprecedented and politicizing emergency relief for Americans. Conservative Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, argued that the nation's expanding deficits require as much spending restraint as possible.

    Earlier this month, President Barack Obama asked Congress for a total of $5.1 billion in additional disaster aid --- $500 million of which was for immediate relief.
    Now, per this article from Political.com:

    At issue this time is disaster aid. Reid announced Tuesday that the Senate will attach $6.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the stopgap spending measure, or continuing resolution.
    House Republicans only want $3.65 billion to go toward disaster relief while Sen. Reid and Senate Democrats want as much as 6.9 billion. The question Congress should be asking is "does the requested additional spending for disaster relief follow the guidelines as setforth in section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended by section 101 of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which reads:

    Disaster Funding
    Section 251(b)(2)(D)

    Subparagraph (i):

    If, for fiscal years 2012 through 2011, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that Congress designates as being for disaster relief in statute, the adjustment for a fiscal year shall be the total of such appropriations for the fiscal year in discretionary accounts designated as being for disaster relief, but not to exceed the total of:

    (I) the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years; and,

    (II) the amount, for years when the enacted new discretionary budget authority designated as being for disaster relief for the preceeding fiscal year was less than the average as calculated in subclause (I) for that fiscal year, that is the difference between the enacted amount and the allowable adjustment as calculated in such subclause for that fiscal year.

    Subpagraph (iv):

    Appropriations considered disaster relief under this subparagraph in a fiscal year shall not be eligible for adjustments under subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year.
    So, what does subparagraph (A) say:

    Emergency Appropriations; Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism

    (Note: The following text will only addresses emergency appropriations since this is the topic of discussion.)

    If, for any fiscal year, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that:

    (i) the Congress designates as emergency requirements in statute on an account-by-account basis and the President subsequently so designates...

    the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in discretionary accounts designed as emergency requirements..., as applicable.
    (Note: Disasters must meet the definition as determined by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.)

    So, the question should be "Does the $6.9 billion in disaster relief Sen. Reid requested meet the 10-year average under the law or did it exceed it?"

    According to this article from theHill.com:

    The vote failed, 195-230, after Democrats pulled their support for the bill and Republican leaders were forced to scramble for enough votes entirely within their own ranks. Four dozen conservatives voted against the bill because it left spending levels for 2012 higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.

    The defeat hands leverage to congressional Democrats in a dispute over federal disaster funding. Democratic leaders objected to a GOP provision cutting funding from a Department of Energy manufacturing loan program to offset additional money for disaster relief.

    The House and Senate must pass a spending bill by Sept. 30 to keep the government running into the next fiscal year. Both chambers are scheduled to be out on recess next week.
    But here's the real kicker...

    The defeat was a stinging loss for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who pitched the measure to his conference as the lowest spending number they could get.
    Decissions, decissions...

    I'd hate to be Speaker Boehner right now. Seems his relationship with Rep. Cantor isn't as close as has been reported.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-22-11 at 03:52 PM.

  7. #7
    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

    Yes, it was a win for those who realize that we must address our growing debt and not simply continue to deficit spend. Yes, it's going to hurt but we have no other options.

  8. #8
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Or being in the same bed with the Democrats makes the Tea Party unrealistic.
    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.

  9. #9
    200M yrs of experience
    Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeastern USA
    Last Seen
    05-07-12 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,166

    Re: House defeats Republican spending plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Or being in the same bed with the Democrats makes the Tea Party unrealistic.
    It was the Tea Party Representatives that both sponsored and voted for the failed resolution - it was the more moderate GOPs that joined the Dems in opposing it. In case you've missed it, the Tea Party approval ratings are now below approval for atheist and Muslims among US voters - have been since they took us right to the wire on the debt crisis. My guess is the Tea Party candidates are going to be some one term and gone Representatives and Senators. I just hope the GOP has enough fiscal conservatives with common sense left to fill those spots.
    I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was wedding between the religious fundamentalists and political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. ~ Billy Graham in Parade magazine February 1, 1981.

  10. #10
    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 Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    It was the Tea Party Representatives that both sponsored and voted for the failed resolution - it was the more moderate GOPs that joined the Dems in opposing it. In case you've missed it, the Tea Party approval ratings are now below approval for atheist and Muslims among US voters - have been since they took us right to the wire on the debt crisis. My guess is the Tea Party candidates are going to be some one term and gone Representatives and Senators. I just hope the GOP has enough fiscal conservatives with common sense left to fill those spots.
    So, on record, you agree with those voting against the bill?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •