• 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)

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This shows that Obama and the democrats are playing politics and care nothing about the people of this country

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times

The White House has vowed to veto the short-term spending bill House Republicans will vote on this afternoon, taking away the safety net that could have given both sides another week to avert a government shutdown.

Without a short-term extension, the options would be narrowed to either a broad successful deal or a shutdown as of midnight Friday.

“If presented with this bill, the president will veto it,” the White House said in an official statement of policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This shows that Obama and the democrats are playing politics and care nothing about the people of this country

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times

The White House has vowed to veto the short-term spending bill House Republicans will vote on this afternoon, taking away the safety net that could have given both sides another week to avert a government shutdown.

Without a short-term extension, the options would be narrowed to either a broad successful deal or a shutdown as of midnight Friday.

“If presented with this bill, the president will veto it,” the White House said in an official statement of policy.

Yes, and the Republicans definitely aren't playing politics with the budget proposals either. (including "bidget" proposals that end medicare and the health care reform bill. no that's definitely not playing politics)
 
Yes, and the Republicans definitely aren't playing politics with the budget proposals either. (including "bidget" proposals that end medicare and the health care reform bill. no that's definitely not playing politics)

To be fair, if this proposal does not have any objectionable riders, it should be signed. Avoiding an actual shutdown should be a goal.
 
Yes, and the Republicans definitely aren't playing politics with the budget proposals either. (including "bidget" proposals that end medicare and the health care reform bill. no that's definitely not playing politics)

The GOP wants a balanced budget and to cut the deficit. Notice the GOP wants military paid if government shutdown and Obama would stop that
 
This shows that Obama and the democrats are playing politics and care nothing about the people of this country

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times

The White House has vowed to veto the short-term spending bill House Republicans will vote on this afternoon, taking away the safety net that could have given both sides another week to avert a government shutdown.

Without a short-term extension, the options would be narrowed to either a broad successful deal or a shutdown as of midnight Friday.

“If presented with this bill, the president will veto it,” the White House said in an official statement of policy.

Or it shows he just wants to end this stupidity now and decide of a budget for 2011.
 
Or it shows he just wants to end this stupidity now and decide of a budget for 2011.

This is all because the democrats did not act before the elections. That shows it is all politics and this all falls on the democrats lack of action and negotiations.
 
This shows that Obama and the democrats are playing politics and care nothing about the people of this country

Obama vows to veto short-term bill - Washington Times

The White House has vowed to veto the short-term spending bill House Republicans will vote on this afternoon, taking away the safety net that could have given both sides another week to avert a government shutdown.

Without a short-term extension, the options would be narrowed to either a broad successful deal or a shutdown as of midnight Friday.

“If presented with this bill, the president will veto it,” the White House said in an official statement of policy.

I hope Republicans pass it. If President Obama vetoes it, let it be on him.
 
The GOP wants a balanced budget and to cut the deficit. Notice the GOP wants military paid if government shutdown and Obama would stop that

That would explain the policy riders on the appropriations. Face it, both sides are playing politics instead of trying to find solutions.
 
We were told yesterday we may not be able to get expedited passports for a number of employees if the slow-down occurs, we had to bring this up to international customers. Yay politicians.
 
IMO, it will take more political courage to prevent a shutdown than to precipitate one. If anything, the occurrence of a shutdown might well demonstrate an example of leadership failure given how much time had been available to negotiate a compromise, especially if non-germane matters led to the shutdown.

Furthermore, if the dispute is truly about the amount of budget reductions, then a straight funding bill without any policy riders should be feasible. After all, Congress would merely be appropriating funds at levels more consistent with budget realities, not attempting to legislate new policy that has little to do with the nation's budget situation. Furthermore, if fiscal policy is the overriding priority, efforts to legislate policy that are extraneous to fiscal matters would represent a diversion from the priority at hand.

Finally, the one-week continuing resolution (CR) may actually be counterproductive in that it could increase prospects of a longer-duration shutdown. The proposed CR is not a straight one-week funding bill. Military funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be provided in the draft CR.

Hence, if no deal were reached after another week had passed, it would actually be easier for many legislators to rationalize a shutdown and to dig in for an extended period of time under the assumption that one of the core functions of government would not be affected. That, in turn, could actually promote greater rigidity which would undermine prospects for compromise. Hence, reasonable as the CR might seem, its design could actually increase the prospects for a more prolonged shutdown. After all, if the military's needs were being met, the political risks and consequences of holding out over divisive social issues would be much less than if no such funding were being provided.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it will take more political courage to prevent a shutdown than to precipitate one. If anything, the occurrence of a shutdown might well demonstrate an example of leadership failure given how much time had been available to negotiate a compromise, especially if non-germane matters led to the shutdown.

Furthermore, if the dispute is truly about the amount of budget reductions, then a straight funding bill without any policy riders should be feasible. After all, Congress would merely be appropriating funds at levels more consistent with budget realities, not attempting to legislate new policy that has little to do with the nation's budget situation. Furthermore, if fiscal policy is the overriding priority, efforts to legislate policy that are extraneous to fiscal matters would represent a diversion from the priority at hand.

Finally, the one-week continuing resolution (CR) may actually be counterproductive in that it could increase prospects of a longer-duration shutdown. The proposed CR is not a straight one-week funding bill. Military funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be provided in the draft CR.

Hence, if no deal were reached after another week had passed, it would actually be easier for many legislators to rationalize a shutdown and to dig in for an extended period of time under the assumption that one of the core functions of government would not be affected. That, in turn, could actually promote greater rigidity which would undermine prospects for compromise. Hence, reasonable as the CR might seem, its design could actually increase the prospects for a more prolonged shutdown. After all, if the military's needs were being met, the political risks and consequences of holding out over divisive social issues would be much less than if no such funding were being provided.

Where are you so I can shake your hand! I was in the middle of typing a response similar to this, and then I read yours. Thank you!
 
Is this the temporary budget resolution which extends social spending for a paltry seven days with cuts but extends the military budget without any cuts for the entire year?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/budget-showdown-aims-to-exempt-pentagon_b_845898.html


This is the thrust of the new Republican plan to pass a one-week continuing resolution for non-defense spending and at the same time pass a full year's status-quo Pentagon budget. Even though military spending is the single largest discretionary spending item in the budget, and even though there are blatant examples of Pentagon waste fraud and abuse, the GOP's proposal nonetheless insists that the Pentagon must be sacrosanct.

There is precious little national support for such a move.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-usa-budget-poll-idUSTRE7286DW20110309

WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 9, 2011 2:47pm EST
(Reuters) - A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed.

The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program.

If this is the bill that the President will veto, hooray for him.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that Reid has been laying the ground work to blame any shut down on the extremist Tea Party and the Ideology of Conservatives.

If Obama veto's the spending bill he will own the shut down and he will blame the Republicans because they was to stop wasting money and reduce spending.

We wouldn't be in the mess we are in if Obama wasn't a damn amateur at everything.
 
Gotta agree. This one is nothing but a political stunt on the part of the republicans by putting in riders they knew wouldnt fly with the democrats. I do think democrats are playing politics during this, but this particular one is more the republicans. Twice as much money and riders about abortion....they passed it knowing full well dems would veto and passed it banking on that.
 
There is precious little national support for such a move.

If this is the bill that the President will veto, hooray for him.

Schocker, people are more willing to cut stuff they don't think will directly benefit them rather than stuff that more obviously will benefit them.

In other news, water is wet
 
The GOP wants a balanced budget and to cut the deficit. Notice the GOP wants military paid if government shutdown and Obama would stop that

Ahh, so that is the Republican meme currently. Good to know.
 
Gotta agree. This one is nothing but a political stunt on the part of the republicans by putting in riders they knew wouldnt fly with the democrats. I do think democrats are playing politics during this, but this particular one is more the republicans. Twice as much money and riders about abortion....they passed it knowing full well dems would veto and passed it banking on that.

As best I can figure out, there are no riders nor amendments on the extension bill. However, it actually raises the pentagon budget. You are correct in the rider on the budget compromise negotiations, and yes it is a bull**** move by republicans. In fact, this whole negotiation thing is bull****, and right now it is about two sides who are looking to score points at any cost, and not about solving any problems. Congress and the white house are right now totally and entirely failing the America people and I am pissed.
 
This is all because the democrats did not act before the elections. That shows it is all politics and this all falls on the democrats lack of action and negotiations.

Yes, they should have acted and done their jobs. And yes, both sides are playing politics and have been all along. And it might well be reasonable for Obama to say enough, reach an agreement. That would be reasonable.
 
Good for them! At least some party is standing up for what they believe.

Yeah! Good for them! Bad for the country...

The Tea Party Freshman and the Republican Study Group have gone rogue, but they are just replaying history. The Republicans forced a government shutdown with Clinton which contained similar ideological riders that they have attached this time. Clinton called their bluff, the government shut down and the Republicans were blamed. This time around the Republicans want a government shutdown as they believe they have momentum on their side, just like in 1994. Tea Partiers in DC shouted Shut'er Down, Shut'er Down as their elected officials say that a shutdown is not what they want. They will get their shut down, and while it will benefit the Dems politically as it did last time, it will most definitely hurt the country.
 
IMO, it will take more political courage to prevent a shutdown than to precipitate one. If anything, the occurrence of a shutdown might well demonstrate an example of leadership failure given how much time had been available to negotiate a compromise, especially if non-germane matters led to the shutdown.

Furthermore, if the dispute is truly about the amount of budget reductions, then a straight funding bill without any policy riders should be feasible. After all, Congress would merely be appropriating funds at levels more consistent with budget realities, not attempting to legislate new policy that has little to do with the nation's budget situation. Furthermore, if fiscal policy is the overriding priority, efforts to legislate policy that are extraneous to fiscal matters would represent a diversion from the priority at hand.

Finally, the one-week continuing resolution (CR) may actually be counterproductive in that it could increase prospects of a longer-duration shutdown. The proposed CR is not a straight one-week funding bill. Military funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be provided in the draft CR.

Hence, if no deal were reached after another week had passed, it would actually be easier for many legislators to rationalize a shutdown and to dig in for an extended period of time under the assumption that one of the core functions of government would not be affected. That, in turn, could actually promote greater rigidity which would undermine prospects for compromise. Hence, reasonable as the CR might seem, its design could actually increase the prospects for a more prolonged shutdown. After all, if the military's needs were being met, the political risks and consequences of holding out over divisive social issues would be much less than if no such funding were being provided.

Is it okay if I just think this whole thing is from all sides a huge cluster****?
 
Gotta agree. This one is nothing but a political stunt on the part of the republicans by putting in riders they knew wouldnt fly with the democrats. I do think democrats are playing politics during this, but this particular one is more the republicans. Twice as much money and riders about abortion....they passed it knowing full well dems would veto and passed it banking on that.

I don't know of any group that isn't playing politics with this.

Then again, I don't anyone should be surprised since this is, you know, politics.
 
Schocker, people are more willing to cut stuff they don't think will directly benefit them rather than stuff that more obviously will benefit them.

In other news, water is wet

But you make that pronouncement as if people are stupid for the ability to recognize what is important to them and what is NOT important to them. Instead of lording it over folks pretending to know what is best for them, please give them a bit of credit for having figured it out.
 
Yeah! Good for them! Bad for the country...

The Tea Party Freshman and the Republican Study Group have gone rogue, but they are just replaying history. The Republicans forced a government shutdown with Clinton which contained similar ideological riders that they have attached this time. Clinton called their bluff, the government shut down and the Republicans were blamed. This time around the Republicans want a government shutdown as they believe they have momentum on their side, just like in 1994. Tea Partiers in DC shouted Shut'er Down, Shut'er Down as their elected officials say that a shutdown is not what they want. They will get their shut down, and while it will benefit the Dems politically as it did last time, it will most definitely hurt the country.

There is a basic problem here that few want to face directly and discuss: the tea party contingent in congress basically hates government and wants to destroy much of it. Putting these wingnuts in the halls of Congress is like putting somebody in charge of an orphanage or residential school who hates children and wants to torture them for their own selfish pleasure and to hell what it does to the kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom