• House of Reps passes bill that undoes defense cuts and makes domestic program cuts
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Washington (CNN) -- The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday that would replace looming Pentagon spending cuts opposed by the GOP with a series of domestic program reductions opposed by congressional Democrats. The bill passed in a strongly polarized 218-199 vote. No Democrats supported the measure. While the legislation has no chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate or surviving a certain presidential veto, it helps set the stage for a campaign showdown over fiscal priorities. It also offers a partial preview of what is shaping up to be a titanic year-end fight over deficit reduction measures set to take effect in 2013. Specifically, the GOP plan would replace the bulk of a package of roughly $110 billion in defense and domestic cuts currently slated for next year. The Republican proposal would, among other things, cut Medicaid and food stamp spending, reduce spending for President Barack Obama's health care reform law, strip regulators of the ability to wind down failing financial firms, and end a White House program meant to help struggling homeowners. The measure would generate nearly $20 billion in savings for the current fiscal year, and $243 billion over the next decade, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The bill will "protect our military from devastating cuts while providing significant deficit reduction," argued House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We want to work with the president, but it's about time he gets serious." House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-California, urged Congress to avoid what he characterized as "catastrophic cuts to our military." "Support our troops (and) support our national security," he declared on the House floor. Democrats accused their Republican counterparts of trying to clean up a fiscal mess on the backs of the poor and the elderly, while protecting special interests and wealthy taxpayers. This debate "clearly defines the values and vision of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California. "Instead of finding common ground we see two different paths in these budgets." The GOP bill would amount to "literally taking food out of the mouths of babies," she later said on the House floor. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, warned the Republican measure would "end Medicare as we know it" and in the process "undermine the health and security of millions of American families." "It's not in keeping with our values as Americans," she insisted. The spending cuts currently scheduled to take effect in 2013 represent the first stage of a 10-year budget "sequester" set in motion by the 2011 Budget Control Act. That measure, enacted last August, raised the federal debt limit while mandating $1 trillion in cuts and establishing a so-called super committee to find an additional $1.2 trillion to deficit savings over the next decade. The super committee's failure to find the $1.2 trillion in savings kicked into motion a default plan to cut spending by an equivalent amount. The planned cut -- starting with the $110 billion set for next year -- is split roughly evenly between defense and non-defense spending. The new defense cuts would follow another $450 billion in Pentagon spending reductions. "Such a large (defense) cut, applied in this indiscriminate manner, would render most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable ... and seriously damage other modernization efforts," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said late last year in a letter to members of Congress. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is pushing for a sharp increase in defense spending. While congressional Democrats also object to a large number of cuts contained in the sequester, they generally prefer tax hikes on the wealthy to help close the budget gap.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/house-budget-vote/index.html[/url]
I find it fucking hilarious. Considering how the government had a monthly surplus for the first time in years because of those cuts. [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/u-s-posted-budget-surplus-of-59-1-billion-in-april.html[/url]
In other news, the house of reps passed a bill with a giant middle finger drawn on it and "suck it obama" written below it. Obama reportedly frowned in disapproval.
Well hopefully, like the article states, this wont go further than the House: [quote]While the legislation has no chance of clearing the Democratic-controlled Senate or surviving a certain presidential veto[/quote]
Slightly off-topic, but can someone explain the need for the whole bi-partisan system USA has going? I'm probably looking at it from the wrong angle, but it doesn't look like anyone's been getting much done with the two major parties strictly opposing each other...
I am not sure what is worse, a split Government that can barely do anything ever, or a theoretical all Republican Government?
I'm not sure why we can't cut both.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;35945684]Slightly off-topic, but can someone explain the need for the whole bi-partisan system USA has going? I'm probably looking at it from the wrong angle, but it doesn't look like anyone's been getting much done with the two major parties strictly opposing each other...[/QUOTE] With any multi party government, it eventually boils down to a two party system where people try to elect one side to get rid of the other side and the left bands together and the right bands together. It's kind of more prevalent in America due to the high amounts of lobbying and the power of media. There's less then a dozen independents/other party members in all of congress and that's depressing.
[QUOTE=person11;35945709]I am not sure what is worse, a split Government that can barely do anything ever, or a theoretical all Republican Government?[/QUOTE] Well, nothing happening is better than getting worse.
There is no need for only a two party system but over time both parties have become so entrenched that no viable third party can form. So US voters are told they have a choice, but really it's only between this guy or that guy. Not much of a choice in my opinion. Both parties staked out their territory and never budge from it. On this particular issue I look at it like this: Republicans got to spend what they wanted in the military(two wars for the last 10 years). Obama inherited those wars, so you can't throw it on him. Isn't it about time we focus at home now? Especially with the economy still dragging along and lots of people either out of work or working for very low pay? In terms of job creation, defense spending does not return much on the investment.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35945756]I'm not sure why we can't cut both.[/QUOTE] we shouldn't cut these domestic programs because lots of people people depend on them for their well-being; cutting them would drastically decrease the general welfare of the average american we can't cut defense spending is because the military industrial lobby and pro-military rhetoric has so firmly ensconced itself within the republican party that even minor cuts to the military are completely out of the question for any republican politician who doesn't want their next reelection campaign to be utterly destroyed by superpacs; so instead we're forced to cut vital domestic programs, saving only a fraction of the money that defense cuts could save while hurting lots and lots and lots of the lower and middle class population of america in the process.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35945792]Well, nothing happening is better than getting worse.[/QUOTE]Its the difference between being stuck in the middle of the ocean on a boat with no propulsion and being stuck in the middle of ocean in a boat with no propulsion that the crew has bombed and is slowly sinking.
The republican party is literally a bunch of saturday morning cartoon villains. If I were to say they're all just sitting there in washington, twiddling their moustaches while laughing and cutting funding for [i]a program which delivers food to senior citizens who lack the ability to leave their homes[/i] as the alternative to losing the financial support of the military-industrial lobby, i would be saying a true thing, without the slightest hyperbole.
Have fun being vetoed.
[QUOTE=Nikota;35945778]With any multi party government, it eventually boils down to a two party system where people try to elect one side to get rid of the other side and the left bands together and the right bands together. It's kind of more prevalent in America due to the high amounts of lobbying and the power of media. There's less then a dozen independents/other party members in all of congress and that's depressing.[/QUOTE] It also doesn't help that the way our elections work only [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"]exacerbates the problem[/URL]. A [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE"]simple change[/URL] to our elections would make it that much easier for candidates the majority supports and, god forbid, third party candidates to get into office. The problem is Congress would never shoot themselves in the foot like this to give other people a chance. Thus we have a chicken and the egg conundrum where neither the chicken nor the egg exist. We need legislation that makes it easier for Independent and third party candidates to get into office, but we need Independents and third party candidates to get into office for that very legislation to be passed.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35945871]The republican party is literally a bunch of saturday morning cartoon villains. If I were to say they're all just sitting there in washington, twiddling their moustaches while laughing and cutting funding for [i]a program which delivers food to senior citizens who lack the ability to leave their homes[/i] as the alternative to losing the financial support of the military-industrial lobby, i would be saying a true thing, without the slightest hyperbole.[/QUOTE] Basically, what you're saying is [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvTXhAkw8WfWRZL_Z4_YkcWr_D-Bsu2nzjYuwcQW0W0M5506iWeeBtlualQ[/img] That's Mitt Romney.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;35945618]Well hopefully, like the article states, this wont go further than the House:[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be so sure, wouldn't be surprised if Republicans got Democrat support for a "democrats r fagets" bill.
We're not in a war with a first world country, we don't need a budget that holds a record for highest military budget. We're trying to get out of a debt here, come on reps.
Republican Party Platform, 2011 Edition: -Bomb more people -Cut taxes -Ban abortion -Let poor people starve Awesome, I hope they do really well with that.
[QUOTE=Nikota;35945778]With any multi party government, it eventually boils down to a two party system where people try to elect one side to get rid of the other side and the left bands together and the right bands together. It's kind of more prevalent in America due to the high amounts of lobbying and the power of media. There's less then a dozen independents/other party members in all of congress and that's depressing.[/QUOTE] No, nearly everything you said is almost completely exclusive to America, and it has absolutely nothing to do with lobbying or the media. The voting system we use encourages the formation of a two party state and keeps third parties weak, and this system is not used in most other Democratic nations. Learn what [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law"]Duverger's Law[/URL] is before you start talking about two-party states and such, our situation is entirely avoidable and the fact that most Americans don't realize this owes greatly to the problem.
[QUOTE=Nikota;35945572]I find it fucking hilarious. Considering how the government had a monthly surplus for the first time in years because of those cuts. [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/u-s-posted-budget-surplus-of-59-1-billion-in-april.html[/url][/QUOTE] Just like with Clinton's, it was a PROJECTED surplus. The money didn't exist yet. [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;35945709]I am not sure what is worse, a split Government that can barely do anything ever, or a theoretical all Republican Government?[/QUOTE] A theoretical single party government can do a lot of bad things, regardless of which party it is.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35946194]Basically, what you're saying is [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvTXhAkw8WfWRZL_Z4_YkcWr_D-Bsu2nzjYuwcQW0W0M5506iWeeBtlualQ[/img] That's Mitt Romney.[/QUOTE] Naw, he looks a bit more like Paulie Walnuts. [img]http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2007/12/rt_mitt_romney_070425_ms.jpg[/img] [img]http://af11.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/tl_sopranos10.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35946194]Basically, what you're saying is [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvTXhAkw8WfWRZL_Z4_YkcWr_D-Bsu2nzjYuwcQW0W0M5506iWeeBtlualQ[/img] That's Mitt Romney.[/QUOTE] You take that back, Skeletor is nothing like Romney. Skeletor is consistent on his views.
Ah yes, I remember when John Boehner laid this big turd out in the open. If I'm not mistaken, these new social program cuts are going to replace the defense cuts the Republicans supposedly were going to allow when the Super Committee failed to cut enough money, right? The very same defense spending cuts that were [I]already[/I] met with social program cuts? [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] Oh and thank fucking god: [quote]The bill passed in a strongly polarized 218-199 vote. No Democrats supported the measure.[/quote] If I could count on the Democrats to do any one thing, at least they stood in opposition to this. [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] [quote]Specifically, the GOP plan would replace the bulk of a package of roughly $110 billion in defense and domestic cuts currently slated for next year. The Republican proposal would, among other things, cut Medicaid and food stamp spending, reduce spending for President Barack Obama's health care reform law, strip regulators of the ability to wind down failing financial firms, and end a White House program meant to help struggling homeowners.[/quote] Okay, so I was a bit mistaken. Turns out that it's not meant to replace the defense cuts and still include the other social cuts, but instead it's going to replace the entirety of both sets of cuts, amounting to about $110 Billion dollars worth. Still abhorrent though.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35946799] If I could count on the Democrats to do any one thing, at least they stood in opposition to this. [/QUOTE] Sadly, standing in opposition means little when you're the minority.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35946856]Sadly, standing in opposition means little when you're the minority.[/QUOTE] yeah except the bill needs to go through the senate and the president both of which are controlled by the democrats
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35946856]Sadly, standing in opposition means little when you're the minority.[/QUOTE] Still has to go through the Senate. On most bills, at least 1 or 2 Democrats votes in support of the Republican plan, but if the House was able to get all of them in line I very much doubt the Senate Democrats will side with the GOP.
[QUOTE=Reds;35946658]You take that back, Skeletor is nothing like Romney. Skeletor is consistent on his views.[/QUOTE] I know. I could've gone with Blitzwing or Alpha Q, but nobody would know who the fuck they are.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35946194]Basically, what you're saying is [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvTXhAkw8WfWRZL_Z4_YkcWr_D-Bsu2nzjYuwcQW0W0M5506iWeeBtlualQ[/img] That's Mitt Romney.[/QUOTE] Mitt Romney is Skeletor. Makes so much fucking sense to be honest.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35946194]Basically, what you're saying is [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGvTXhAkw8WfWRZL_Z4_YkcWr_D-Bsu2nzjYuwcQW0W0M5506iWeeBtlualQ[/img] That's Mitt Romney.[/QUOTE] Nah, he's more like this [IMG]http://badassoftheweek.com/badass-emperor.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.