• 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!

Reid blocs Senate vote on OBAMA's deficit-reduction plan

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,495
Reaction score
39,819
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, now we know. The President's fiscal cliff proposal is about as serious as his last budget proposal. And Democrats don't want to be responsible for it.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday offered an amendment to force a vote on President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was having none of it.

“Last week [Treasury] Secretary [Timothy] Geithner brought up a proposal that was so unserious,” McConnell said on the floor, “I would like to see if my Democratic friends would like to support it.”....

Reid, however, objected to McConnell’s suggestion, saying the Russian trade bill, H.R. 6156, is about job creation, not political stunts from Republicans... The majority leader's objection removes the amendment from consideration.


McConnell said he wasn’t surprised Democrats didn’t want to vote on Obama’s plan, which he said raises taxes on small businesses.


Not a single Senate Democrat has stepped forward to support it, and if you look at it you can see why,” McConnell said... The plan would also allow the president to raise the debt ceiling without action from Congress, something lawmakers heavily oppose.


McConnell added that he'd be happy to have a stand-alone vote on the president's plan rather than attaching it to legislation as an amendment.

Democrats, the ball is now back in your court. If you believe in that what the President has put forward, vote on it.
 
So, now we know. The President's fiscal cliff proposal is about as serious as his last budget proposal. And Democrats don't want to be responsible for it.




Democrats, the ball is now back in your court. If you believe in that what the President has put forward, vote on it.

Yeah, let the lying sacks of **** vote on it. I'll bet Obama will raise taxes on old people, Clinton did.
 
Reid will never allow a vote. That's not his job in the liberal scheme of things. His job is to obstruct.
 
It makes perfect sense to block the vote. McConnell and the Republicans are just throwing a childish temper tantrum; maybe instead of trying to organize these stunts they should spend time coming up with a proposal of their own.
 
It makes perfect sense to block the vote. McConnell and the Republicans are just throwing a childish temper tantrum; maybe instead of trying to organize these stunts they should spend time coming up with a proposal of their own.

They did. Obama rejected it.
 
Classic response. The plan sucks, no democrats will vote for it..its the republicans fault.

When was the last time the democrat led senate passed a budget again?
 
Classic response. The plan sucks, no democrats will vote for it..its the republicans fault.

When was the last time the democrat led senate passed a budget again?

The demorats do not want a "budget", the continuing resolution process locks in the 20% federal spending increase gained from the "one time", crisis spending spike of TARP and stimulus 1 (2008-2009), without having to say just why (for exactly what) federal spending must remain that high. As the demorats love to remind us - Obama "raised" federal spending very little (as long as 2008-2009 are counted as Bush years). Yes they can!
 
It makes perfect sense to block the vote. McConnell and the Republicans are just throwing a childish temper tantrum; maybe instead of trying to organize these stunts they should spend time coming up with a proposal of their own.

I would thing the democrats would be anxious to vote for the President's proposal.
 
the first proposals from both sides were never intended to be anything other than setting goalposts. sad, but that's how it works.

Obama's first proposal for health care reform was already a compromise position, and it got whittled away into near-uselessness. the public option should have been the final compromise, not the proposal.

not trying to derail the thread into a health reform debate; i'm just using it to explain why both sides initially propose pie in the sky plans that have no chance of being enacted.
 
I'm not getting the focus on HR 6156. The CBO claims that any increase in tariff revenue would be "insignificant" through 2022, that we'd actually have a (rather small, admittedly) cost of $1 million through 2017, and ...

CBO expects that enacting H.R. 6156 would decrease revenues from visa fees and increase revenues from civil and criminal penalties imposed on those who violate the regulations. CBO estimates that the provisions would affect few people and that revenues deposited in the Treasury would not be significant in any year.

And...

H.R. 6156 does not contain provisions regarding human rights violations


....so what jobs creation are we to expect? The bill allows Russia to move from one trade list to another, opening up trade routes, but the focus appears to be primarily on imports FROM Russia, not exports TO Russia. Why is that bill the emphasis when the "Fiscal Cliff" is looming? HR 6156 has been on the table since before July, which is when the CBO analysis was performed.
 
It makes perfect sense to block the vote. McConnell and the Republicans are just throwing a childish temper tantrum; maybe instead of trying to organize these stunts they should spend time coming up with a proposal of their own.

Considering Democrats have full control over what bills are introduced in the Senate, the only way Senate Republicans can raise legislation for a vote is through the amendment process.

While its pointless to start the conversation at all in the Senate, as all bills that include revenue must originate in the House, without Reid along for the ride all legislation is DOA.
 
Considering Democrats have full control over what bills are introduced in the Senate, the only way Senate Republicans can raise legislation for a vote is through the amendment process.

While its pointless to start the conversation at all in the Senate, as all bills that include revenue must originate in the House, without Reid along for the ride all legislation is DOA.

Until the 70% of americans that want compromise and will blame the house for any lack of...makes them do something.
 
Democrats, the ball is now back in your court. If you believe in that what the President has put forward, vote on it.

The presidents offer was a starting point. It's perfectly fine if some Democrats don't like it, and it makes no sense to vote on it right now knowing that it won't pass due to filibuster.


Besides, have you seen how upset some Republicans are getting at Boehner over what he has said? Why don't you start a thread about that? Oh that's right, doesn't fit your narrow minded political agenda based on dishonest tactics like these from McConnell.
 
Until the 70% of americans that want compromise and will blame the house for any lack of...makes them do something.

And what are we going to do? We've elected the **** burger we have, and nothing is going to change that between now and November 2014.

We can complain, cheer, do all the gyrating we want, but until the Egos in charge realize that we've got to raise taxes and cut spending to reduce the 7% GDP gap of revenue to spending we currently have, we might as well be happy with the current cliff deal.
 
And what are we going to do? We've elected the **** burger we have, and nothing is going to change that between now and November 2014.

We can complain, cheer, do all the gyrating we want, but until the Egos in charge realize that we've got to raise taxes and cut spending to reduce the 7% GDP gap of revenue to spending we currently have, we might as well be happy with the current cliff deal.

I dont know what your ranting about...thats what I said...I agree with that. What I did say that if the house stonewalls which is controlled by democrats the american people are going to blame them.
 
They did. Obama rejected it.

No they didn't. Proposing "revenue increases" through closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, without stating which loopholes/deductions, is not a proposal, it's an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air. Everyone knows that the revenue goals the Republicans claim to be able to hit through doing this won't happen without either getting rid of charitable giving deductions (which would be opposed on a bipartisan basis) or getting rid of large amounts of deductions for the <$250,000/yr crowd (which the democrats have already said they would reject).

The Republican plan for spending cuts is the exact same. A number pulled out of thin air without any explanation as to what cuts are being proposed to make up that number.

So there is no Republican proposal on the table here, which is precisely why it was rejected.
 
No they didn't. Proposing "revenue increases" through closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, without stating which loopholes/deductions, is not a proposal, it's an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air. Everyone knows that the revenue goals the Republicans claim to be able to hit through doing this won't happen without either getting rid of charitable giving deductions (which would be opposed on a bipartisan basis) or getting rid of large amounts of deductions for the <$250,000/yr crowd (which the democrats have already said they would reject).

The Republican plan for spending cuts is the exact same. A number pulled out of thin air without any explanation as to what cuts are being proposed to make up that number.

So there is no Republican proposal on the table here, which is precisely why it was rejected.

Given your logic...Obama didn't propose anything either. He resists giving details on spending cuts AND on increased spending.
 
No they didn't. Proposing "revenue increases" through closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, without stating which loopholes/deductions, is not a proposal, it's an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air. Everyone knows that the revenue goals the Republicans claim to be able to hit through doing this won't happen without either getting rid of charitable giving deductions (which would be opposed on a bipartisan basis) or getting rid of large amounts of deductions for the <$250,000/yr crowd (which the democrats have already said they would reject).

The Republican plan for spending cuts is the exact same. A number pulled out of thin air without any explanation as to what cuts are being proposed to make up that number.

So there is no Republican proposal on the table here, which is precisely why it was rejected.

So, something is only a proposal if you agree with it.
 
The presidents offer was a starting point. It's perfectly fine if some Democrats don't like it, and it makes no sense to vote on it right now knowing that it won't pass due to filibuster.

No- Republicans offered to bring it to the floor for a vote. IE: no filibuster. They said "we will have a vote on this". Perhaps you missed that part - it was sort of the OP and the entire point of the thread?

Besides, have you seen how upset some Republicans are getting at Boehner over what he has said?

Where? Republicans have been fine with closing loopholes for some time - hell, it's our party platform.

Why don't you start a thread about that? Oh that's right, doesn't fit your narrow minded political agenda based on dishonest tactics like these from McConnell.

:roll:
 
They did. Obama rejected it.

And what was the proposal? Oh yeah, to eliminate nonexistent deductions and loopholes.

Maybe you can list some of them. Here's your chance: FILL IN THE BLANK: the GOP proposes to elimate the following deductions and loopholes from top bracket taxpayers: ____________________

Good luck twisting in the wind!
 
So, something is only a proposal if you agree with it.


And what was the proposal? Spell out the deductions and loopholes the GOP proposed to eliminate on top bracket taxpayers.

A total fraud!
 
No they didn't. Proposing "revenue increases" through closing loopholes and eliminating deductions, without stating which loopholes/deductions, is not a proposal, .

BINGO, the GOP "proposal" was a total fraud. Just a talking point for the rightwing noise machine. Nothing more. And here are the rightwing minions, repeating it.
 
And what was the proposal? Oh yeah, to eliminate nonexistent deductions and loopholes.

Maybe you can list some of them. Here's your chance: FILL IN THE BLANK: the GOP proposes to elimate the following deductions and loopholes from top bracket taxpayers: ____________________

Good luck twisting in the wind!

:shrug: they've given lots of options. Limiting the total size of deductions. Getting rid of the mortgage deductions on non-primary residences, and primary residences above a certain worth. Getting rid of the State Tax deduction. Etc, Etc. The Bowles Simpson plan (which is what their offer was modeled on) got rid of the vast majority, and raise more revenue therefore while lowering nominal rates. That's the basis for a smart tax reform policy, just as it was for Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan.
 
I've asked this before during other looming financial legislation deadlines, but I've never received an answer:

Why is the pressure on republicans and Obama to bicker back and forth over the bill? Shouldn't it be the republican and democrat legislators going back and forth while Obama mediates the discussion? Have the democratic legislators offered up a financial bill in the house? An amendment? Any language? Any input at all? Or are the two main proposals the ones submitted by the republican group and Obama?

And to further that, why do we not rail on the democrat legislators for essentially sitting around doing nothing while Obama and the republicans go back and forth?
 
Back
Top Bottom