Page 12 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 319

Thread: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

  1. #111
    User Candice Lynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-21-11 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    77

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Perhaps the 111th Congress should have done their JOB in the first place when they had the opportunity to do it the way they wanted.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    His budget is a joke. He's still pushing highspeed rail for crying out loud. Will someone please tell that man we are broke and need to stop spending yesterday?
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  3. #113
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Why is it every time something important is going on, Obama goes on vacation.

    The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg Virginia > News > President Obama, First Family plan to vacation in Williamsburg this weekend

    Geez, how many family vacations a year do they need. We typically go on one or two. The Obamas go about once a month.

    But hey, it's not like he's the president or anything.

  4. #114
    User Candice Lynn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-21-11 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    77

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    President Obama road-tests 2012 themes - Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com Serious policy differences are not petty politics Mr. President. See if you can tell the direction the prez is moving in.

    Here's the President, speaking yesterday at a town hall meeting in Fairless Hills, PA. See if you can spot his new theme, as pointed out by POLITICO. It's not too difficult.

    THE PRESIDENT: It's a plan that says we're not going to play the usual Washington politics that have prevented progress on energy for decades. Instead, what we're going to do is we're going to take every good idea out there.

    Again:

    THE PRESIDENT: Reducing our dependence on oil, doubling the clean energy we use, helping to grow our economy by securing our energy future -- that's going to be a big challenge. ... It's going to require us getting past some of the petty politics that we play sometimes.

    And again:

    THE PRESIDENT: So we've agreed to a compromise, but somehow we still don't have a deal, because some folks are trying to inject politics in what should be a simple debate about how to pay our bills. They're stuffing all kinds of issues in there -- abortion and the environment and health care.

    And again:

    THE PRESIDENT: Companies don't like uncertainty and if they start seeing that suddenly we may have a shutdown of our government, that could halt momentum right when we need to build it up -- all because of politics.

    And again:

    THE PRESIDENT: I do not want to see Washington politics stand in the way of America's progress. ... You want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games, realize that it's not just "my way or the highway."

    And again:

    THE PRESIDENT: I want to kick-start this industry. I want to make sure we've got good customers, and I want to make sure that there's the financing there so that we can meet that demand. And there's no reason why we can't do both, but it does require us getting past some of these political arguments.

    When the President says, "I do not want to see Washington politics stand in the way of America's progress," he always defines "progress" as his policy goals. If you favor his policies, you are for progress. If not, you are engaged in "petty politics" and "games."

    The President is arguing that those who disagree with his policies are engaged in politics. They are, he argues, motivated not by a well-intentioned difference of opinion about how to improve America, but instead by selfish motives.

    This is itself destructive politics, cleverly framed as trying to rise above the fray. It cheapens serious policy debate and makes it harder to reach agreement. It contributes to voters' cynicism. It means that those responsible elected officials on the other side of the aisle who want to work toward principled compromise must overcome both their anger at being personally attacked, and the heat generated in both parties' wings by a President who challenges the other side's good intent. It drives away potential negotiating partners and thereby reduces the likelihood of bipartisan compromise.

    President Obama changed the direction of American politics in 2008 and again in 2010. The partisan balance of our government reflects both changes. By attacking the motives of elected officials who ran against and now oppose his policy agenda, the President in effect attacks those voters who disagreed with his policies, started a new political movement, and changed the makeup of Congress.

    Of course partisan politics and individual agendas interact with and influence policy debates.

    Of course there are individuals, both inside and outside government, who at times provoke conflict for their own narrow self-interest.

    Yes, the American partisan political structure and the short attention span of the average voter favor political battle over serious policy debate.

    Yes, many in the press and commentariat are attracted by and contribute to ongoing conflict rather than cover the lengthy and complex debate needed to understand serious policy disagreements.

    Yes, cable TV, talk radio, the internet, and now social media accelerate the news cycle, shorten our attention spans, and allow Americans to self-select into ideological camps.

    Yes, there are plenty of people in both parties who spend most of their time in destructive partisan warfare.

    Yes, there are plenty of irresponsible and selfish people in Washington, whose behavior and childishness repulses most everyone else.

    Yet except for social media, these are not new forces. There are plenty of serious policymakers on both sides of the aisle who want to make America a better place, but just have different visions of how to do that. And all these negative factors are far less important to what happens in Washington than the serious, well-considered, deep policy disagreements among elected officials and other policy makers.

    Paul Ryan has just proposed a plan to change our Nation's fiscal path to one very different from that proposed by the President. Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Scott Walker are engaged in partisan battles as they try to fix New Jersey, Indiana and Wisconsin state finances. Dave Camp and Orrin Hatch are battling organized labor by working to ensure we enact free trade agreements with Korea and Colombia and Panama. They (and Democrat Max Baucus) are initiating a discussion of fundamental tax reform. Fred Upton and Lisa Murkowski are trying to stop the President's EPA from raising costs on American farms and businesses. Countless Republicans are trying to stop the implementation of new health insurance mandates and entitlements that they believe hurt America. In each case, these are serious Republican officials engaged in policy battle because they think it's necessary to improve policy. Their views, electoral success, and actions deserve respect from those who disagree.

    If the President wants to reduce the impact of the usual petty Washington politics, the recipe is quite simple. Treat with respect those who disagree with you. Vigorously debate their ideas rather than impugning their motives. Ignore the screamers and rabble-rousers. Stick to your guns while seeking opportunities for principled compromise. And acknowledge that those who disagree with your policy agenda may not all be evil.

    -kbh

  5. #115
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    The problem here is that last Congress punted, and now this House HAS a budget, and the Dem's don't like it. Maybe we wouldn't be here if the Dem's hadn't decided to play politics for the Nov. elections and not do their jobs. Obama needs to accept the new reality, he lost the ability to force his will on the House when the Dem's lost their majority. Elections have consequences, and now we'll see how this pans out.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  6. #116
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    1) No funding for any program that features abstinence-only sexual education
    Give me a rider that says no funding for any program that does not promintently feature abstinence as the best alternative and I'd absolutely agree with this one being on there.

    2) No funding for any program that tries to in any way persuade women to not have abortions
    Give me a rider that says no funding for planned parenthood and I'll agree with this one.

    3) No funding for any educational program that teaches any alternative "theories" to evoluti0on
    Give me a rider that says no funding for any educational program that teachers man-made global warming and I'll agree with this one.

    4) No funding for any energy source that isn't carbon-free
    Give me no funding for any "green" energy sources along with it and sure thing.

    7) No funding for gitmo or detainment of any prisoners currently housed there
    I wouldn't bother to fight this one, because your own parties President wouldn't go for this.

    Seriously, 1 through 4 of your proposal I'd have no problems with if you gave it to me the from the other side as well, because it'd reduce the amount of things that are non-essential that the governments spending their money on.

    As to the first four, while I'd disagree with them on principle and fight against them I wouldn't have a huge issue with them principly. They are directly budget related in that you're attempting to determine where the budget can or can not go, thus another form of attepting to elliminate programs.

    I do have issues with the republicans trying to tie health care to this, as I would yours, because I think its taking an issue that is far more than the budget of a federal program or position and attempting to shoehorn it into this. Those far reaching riders are not things I like coming from either side.

    I also think the first few, while fine during most sessions, are not something to be playing with when we're this late into the game and something NEEDS to get passed.

  7. #117
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Amusingly, Part D was passed with no attempt to pay for it.
    Why does everyone bash part D? To my knowledge it's the only government program that has ever come in under the projected cost.


    Medicare Part D Under Budget
    According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the total costs for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program based on actuary estimates will be $37.2 billion in 2008 and $46.4 billion in 2009. When the drug benefit was being debated in Congress, however, the actuary estimated the benefit would cost $68 billion in 2008 and $74 billion in 2009. Based on these estimates, Medicare Part D is currently operating at 37-45% under initial projections.Further, officials at CMS report that monthly premiums for Medicare prescription drug plans will average $28 in 2009 – a 37% decrease from $44.12 when the benefit was created in 2003 – translating into significant savings for the Federal government as well as beneficiaries.
    DRX Trends: Medicare Part D Under Budget
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  8. #118
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    that's leadership?
    This freeze would be the most aggressive effort to restrain discretionary spending to take effect in 30 years
    bold away, link away

    Cato's Pilon: Obama's Spending Freeze 'Insult to Our Intelligence'
    On Politico, Pilon writes: “With uncontrolled deficits well into the future and a debt exceeding $14 trillion, for Obama to propose saving only $40 billion per year in discretionary spending over the next five years, while ‘investing’ in pie-in-the-sky things like high-speed rail, wind farms, environmentally destructive ethanol, and the like is worse than unserious — it's an insult to our intelligence.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The clip from Reed is mild and routine. What are you talking about?
    from "harry reid stands alone," by politico, link above:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been a man on an island as he negotiates a momentous budget deal to avert a government shutdown.

    President Barack Obama was disengaged until the last 48 hours.

    In some respects, Reid has gained more trust from Democrats in the Senate, who are growing increasingly skeptical that Obama has their best interests at heart.

    At meeting after meeting, Senate Democrats have berated Obama’s lack of personal intervention in the budget negotiations, senators say, even though White House senior staff has been engaged in talks for weeks and the president has stepped in during the past couple days. But at the same time, they’re concerned the White House has far different objectives that would alienate much of their caucus if the talks were left up to the West Wing and Boehner.

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

    Quote Originally Posted by ggh View Post
    The numbers of Doctors acceppting Medicare and Medicaid patients is dropping.

    The need of more health care for seniors drives up the cost for everyone, no matter how it is paid for. Doctors who accept Medicare patients simply charge their other patients more to make up for the lower level of Medicare reimbursement.
    yes, and from the ap link above:

    [Obama's 2012] budget also fails to pay for the cost of keeping payments for doctors after 2013.
    leadership, anyone?

Page 12 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •