John Boehner Refuses to Allow the House to Vote on Sequester Replacement Bill

[gatorman_07732]

I can see how 996 is upset because this truly boxes in Obama after his complaining tour using his pulpit

[Minister_of_Information]

So the House is now acting like the Senate has for 5 years. For shame!

[gator996]

It doesn't box Obama in at all...but it does give in to the inability of Congress to do anything...

Who's fault is that Obama's also?


I'm quite sure of one thing....

Obama's cuts won't come on the backs of the poor & middle class

[gator996]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

So the House is now acting like the Senate has for 5 years. For shame!

This is a spending issue...the bill has to start in the house.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

It doesn't box Obama in at all...but it does give in to the inability of Congress to do anything...

Who's fault is that Obama's also?


I'm quite sure of one thing....

Obama's cuts won't come on the backs of the poor & middle class

It most certainly does, because now he can do something about the very people he was scaring.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I can see how 996 is upset because this truly boxes in Obama after his complaining tour using his pulpit

It shows the problems with Republicans. They both want to cut spending and blame spending cuts on everybody else. It is why no Republican will ever be specific about what they want to cut. Romney spent an entire campaign refusing to give specifics. Rubio spent an entire response to the SOTU without giving specifics on what he would cut.

Republicans are desperately trying to convince everybody that they are going to cut somebody else's favorite spending. That way, when somebody actually acts like an adult and cuts spending, they will then scream about how horrible they were for hurting old people, poor people, military people, disabled people, unemployed people, etc. Of course while doing this, they will not actually offer real cuts that they would have done instead. They just would have cut "other spending."

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

It shows the problems with Republicans. They both want to cut spending and blame spending cuts on everybody else. It is why no Republican will ever be specific about what they want to cut. Romney spent an entire campaign refusing to give specifics. Rubio spent an entire response to the SOTU without giving specifics on what he would cut.

Republicans are desperately trying to convince everybody that they are going to cut somebody else's favorite spending. That way, when somebody actually acts like an adult and cuts spending, they will then scream about how horrible they were for hurting old people, poor people, military people, disabled people, unemployed people, etc. Of course while doing this, they will not actually offer real cuts that they would have done instead. They just would have cut "other spending."

This is pretty funny, this whole thing was concocted by the ABM administration and is now going to backfire. The kicker is Obama has lied about the whole thing and has been caught.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This is pretty funny, this whole thing was concocted by the ABM administration and is now going to backfire. The kicker is Obama has lied about the whole thing and has been caught.

You really figure that both chambers are going to pass that stupid bill? Political grandstanding at its finest. Let me know when all of you "Conservatives" start even pretending to get specific about what should be cut.

[gator996]

I know...why do you think this "pin it on Obama" thing is going anywhere?

[mdgator05]

If spending cuts are such great policy, as they like to claim, shouldn't conservatives be clamoring to be given credit for these cuts?

[tegator80]

Personally, I find this very entertaining. You are seeing some fine lawyering right now. I also find it entertaining to see posters in the Too Hot rooting for their side. Wait a little bit and Reid/Pelosi/Obama will make a counter-move and then it will be up to "the good guys" to counter the counter.

Guys, it is all a play for your emotions...and your pocketbooks. No one is clean in this and if you really want to root for something, how about the US and kick them all out. Of course we had that chance last November and we decided it wasn't worth the effort. Sorry, but all of us are outnumbered by the truly stupid and disconnected. Might as well get to that place ASAP.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

I know...why do you think this "pin it on Obama" thing is going anywhere?

From Woodward:

Bob Woodward: Obama Made Big Mistake on Sequester

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491803

Woodward documents in his 2012 book The Price of Politics that team Obama first proposed the idea of the sequester. Expanding on his work in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed, he noted—as he has before—that both President Obama and his would-be Treasury Secretary Jack Lew lied on the campaign trail by saying the sequester originated with House Republicans. The White House has now ceded that fact.

The sequester was a risky gambit by the president. It succeeded in preventing a government default with a debt ceiling deal right before he sought re-election. But it failed to work as advertised on deficit reduction because people assumed it wouldn't happen.

Obama now stares down another debt ceiling deal—after the sequester is slated to start—with negotiations polluted by the recent past.

[G8trGr8t]

yes, 0 was confident that after he got his tax increases he would be able to add even more taxes by leveraging political pressure from the sequester. pubs made it clear that the tax increases approved as part of the debt ceiling would be the last ones but the narcissist in chief was certain that the lmsm would carry his message of pain and crisis to the masses and force the pubs to cave again. now like a spoiled child, he is stamping his feet and pitching a fit because he can't have what he wanted all along, more and more taxes. it is apparent that his mommy never taught him the meaning of the word no

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

yes, 0 was confident that after he got his tax increases he would be able to add even more taxes by leveraging political pressure from the sequester. pubs made it clear that the tax increases approved as part of the debt ceiling would be the last ones but the narcissist in chief was certain that the lmsm would carry his message of pain and crisis to the masses and force the pubs to cave again. now like a spoiled child, he is stamping his feet and pitching a fit because he can't have what he wanted all along, more and more taxes. it is apparent that his mommy never taught him the meaning of the word no

Given the reactions to anything that he does on this board, this is an ironic post.

[chemgator]

Originally Posted by gator996

The sequester was voted for by republicans & democrats...could have been avoided by congress with the super committee...was designed to be so crappy as to make getting a better negotiated deal easy.

That didn't happen because the house GOP can't manage its membership to negotiate a deal with anyone including Boehner.


Please explain the logic of blocking a vote to avoid the sequester.


And then you can explain how the GOP's politcal strategies have been working out recently...

Please explain what's wrong with the sequester. Why does it need to be avoided? Didn't Obama increase discretionary spending 84% in his first four years? Didn't these spending increases fail to "stimulate" the economy? Is it too much to ask that Obama lead us toward smarter spending, instead of randomly increasing spending until a recovery somehow magically occurs?

I think the republican strategies are working fine. We might finally go a year without a double-digit discretionary spending increase. We will probably have to wait to get a real leader in the White House before we can actually cut any spending.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by chemgator

Please explain what's wrong with the sequester. Why does it need to be avoided? Didn't Obama increase discretionary spending 84% in his first four years? Didn't these spending increases fail to "stimulate" the economy? Is it too much to ask that Obama lead us toward smarter spending, instead of randomly increasing spending until a recovery somehow magically occurs?

I think the republican strategies are working fine. We might finally go a year without a double-digit discretionary spending increase. We will probably have to wait to get a real leader in the White House before we can actually cut any spending.

Let's answer your 2nd question first....

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/sunday-replay-29/

Domestic Spending Is Up, But How Much?

Two Republicans on two different talk shows made the claim that discretionary domestic spending is up 84 percent since President Barack Obama took office. But that’s an inflated figure. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has produced reports that show the figure is actually 28 percent.



Here’s what the politicians said:


Rep. Mike Pence on ABC’s "This Week": The president yesterday called for a spending freeze. Well, we — we think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and freeze there — there’s been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We’ve got to roll back there.

Rep. Paul Ryan on "Fox News Sunday": This category of spending [non-defense, discretionary] — the base spending went up 24 percent in the last two years. When we add stimulus, it went up 84 percent. We have had spending on a gusher.



The 84 percent figure is a product of the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee. The GOP report says it represents "non-defense discretionary spending" for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. But the report is flawed.

The GOP report estimated the "discretionary stimulus spending" for fiscal year 2010 to be $259 billion. But in a February 2009 report, the CBO put that figure at $110.7 billion. The one-year figure used by the Republican staff is actually close to what CBO said the cost would be for an entire decade of stimulus spending: $308 billion spread over 10 years. (The total cost of the stimulus measure was higher, but much of it came in tax cuts, not discretionary spending.)

Also, the GOP staffers are counting budget authority as "spending," which is incorrect. Budget authority is not spending. It’s the amount that Congress has authorized to be spent, and often the actual spending stretches over more than one year. It is more accurate to use actual outlays, which represent dollars spent. Also, the CBO says (page 21) budget authority includes "spending from the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund … and is not considered discretionary."

Finally, the GOP staffers used old CBO budget authority data from when the spending bills were passed, rather than the CBO’s updated spending data.

A more current and accurate measure of non-defense discretionary spending can be found in two recent CBO reports: The Budget and Economic Outlook issued in January 2010 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update issued in August 2010.

In the January 2010 report, the CBO (on table 3-8) reports that total non-defense discretionary outlays were $522 billion in 2008 (actual), $581 billion in 2009 (actual) and $682 billion in 2010 (estimated). That’s an increase of 31 percent, from $522 billion to $682 billion. The 2009 and 2010 figures include stimulus funds.

The August update (table 1-5) revised the 2010 non-defense discretionary figure downward to $666 billion, meaning the increase from 2008 to 2010 is now at 28 percent. The fiscal year closed on Sept. 30, so the 2010 figure issued in August should be close to the actual amount.


Now the answer to Question #3 is "no", the stimulus DID help the economy.

The answer to Question #4 ignores the targeted spending the republicans have favored, sometimes originated, that Obama is trying to get passed and now they block.

Explain to me the resistance to funding the infrastructure bank?



Where in your opinion is all of the job creation legislation that the House GOP ran on in 2010 midterms?


Lets be honest here...they did nothing and got ousted in 2012 for being obstructionist.

[surfn1080]

http://townhall.com/political-cartoo...3/02/27/107451

IMg doesn't seem to work. Anyhow now the prez is saying most won't feel the cuts....

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by gator996

Let's answer your 2nd question first....

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/sunday-replay-29/

Domestic Spending Is Up, But How Much?

Two Republicans on two different talk shows made the claim that discretionary domestic spending is up 84 percent since President Barack Obama took office. But that’s an inflated figure. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has produced reports that show the figure is actually 28 percent.



Here’s what the politicians said:


Rep. Mike Pence on ABC’s "This Week": The president yesterday called for a spending freeze. Well, we — we think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and freeze there — there’s been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We’ve got to roll back there.

Rep. Paul Ryan on "Fox News Sunday": This category of spending [non-defense, discretionary] — the base spending went up 24 percent in the last two years. When we add stimulus, it went up 84 percent. We have had spending on a gusher.



The 84 percent figure is a product of the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee. The GOP report says it represents "non-defense discretionary spending" for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. But the report is flawed.

The GOP report estimated the "discretionary stimulus spending" for fiscal year 2010 to be $259 billion. But in a February 2009 report, the CBO put that figure at $110.7 billion. The one-year figure used by the Republican staff is actually close to what CBO said the cost would be for an entire decade of stimulus spending: $308 billion spread over 10 years. (The total cost of the stimulus measure was higher, but much of it came in tax cuts, not discretionary spending.)

Also, the GOP staffers are counting budget authority as "spending," which is incorrect. Budget authority is not spending. It’s the amount that Congress has authorized to be spent, and often the actual spending stretches over more than one year. It is more accurate to use actual outlays, which represent dollars spent. Also, the CBO says (page 21) budget authority includes "spending from the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund … and is not considered discretionary."

Finally, the GOP staffers used old CBO budget authority data from when the spending bills were passed, rather than the CBO’s updated spending data.

A more current and accurate measure of non-defense discretionary spending can be found in two recent CBO reports: The Budget and Economic Outlook issued in January 2010 and The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update issued in August 2010.

In the January 2010 report, the CBO (on table 3-8) reports that total non-defense discretionary outlays were $522 billion in 2008 (actual), $581 billion in 2009 (actual) and $682 billion in 2010 (estimated). That’s an increase of 31 percent, from $522 billion to $682 billion. The 2009 and 2010 figures include stimulus funds.

The August update (table 1-5) revised the 2010 non-defense discretionary figure downward to $666 billion, meaning the increase from 2008 to 2010 is now at 28 percent. The fiscal year closed on Sept. 30, so the 2010 figure issued in August should be close to the actual amount.


Now the answer to Question #3 is "no", the stimulus DID help the economy.

The answer to Question #4 ignores the targeted spending the republicans have favored, sometimes originated, that Obama is trying to get passed and now they block.

Explain to me the resistance to funding the infrastructure bank?



Where in your opinion is all of the job creation legislation that the House GOP ran on in 2010 midterms?


Lets be honest here...they did nothing and got ousted in 2012 for being obstructionist.

Lets not pretend both sides don't do this. Obama has been spewing out fear all week on just 2% and is now already back tracking. Either way spending increased when we were promised a reduced deficit!

[Minister_of_Information]

Republicans are the Debil!

[gator996]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

Lets not pretend both sides don't do this. Obama has been spewing out fear all week on just 2% and is now already back tracking. Either way spending increased when we were promised a reduced deficit!

Newsflash....

You got a reduced deficit.


The deficit is the annual borrowing plug to meet our obligations...
That's gone down under Obama...

The national debt is the sum of the deficits...