Forward over the cliff!!! The House needs to reject this ridiculous deal. They
need to cut spending, remove government waste, and get the Feds out of the
States' affairs!Unless a deal will cut spending by more than it
increases taxes, WE NEED TO GO OVER THE CLIFF!!!
re:WorfFor the record:Obama only had a filibuster-proof
majority between Sept 24, 2009 and Feb. 4, 2010. Congressional records
reflect that the Senate was in session for 72 days during the four months and
one week that the Democrats actually had a filibuster-proof majority.Obama has submitted budget proposals every year.FYI The budget
process:The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration
of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees
with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget
committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget
resolution. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are
expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, Budget resolutions specify
funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.Appropriations committees put together appropriations bills, which may be
considered in the House. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they
are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically
required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a
conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the
President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law.
As was mentioned on the Senate floor -- returning to the Clinton Era tax rates
would not be a bad thing ---- PROVIDED that we also returned to the Clinton Era
spending levels --- But no one wants to do that.All I know is when I
read that a 'deal' had been struck, I got a sinking feeling in the pit
of my stomach, like when the dog and the cat finally decide how they are going
to eat the chicken. Either way, its bad news for the chicken.There's obviously no intention to get spending under control, in spite of
what any of our government leaders try to suggest. All of them want more
spending. Problem is, they are running out of people from whom they can
confiscate the money for the endless parties in Washington. I'm wondering
if it really matters any more --- Democrat or Republican, its like the
difference between pigs and swine. We've all got to understand that we
cannot continue to live as we have been living, we the people need as much
fiscal discipline as we are requiring from our government.
Reduce the size of government with no new taxes? Start by reducing the staff of
ALL Senators, Congressmen, White House, and every Embassy overseas.WHAT do you want cut? Should Hill Air Force Base be cut or do we only want
government cuts in other states?No new taxes? IF all the George W.
Bush tax cuts expired, there would be NO new tax. The result would be taxes
would return to where they were before the 2 unfunded wars were started.The tax cut AND the 2 unfunded wars are responsible for a big portion of
the increased debt.
"Why is no one demanding that Reid and his Senate at least pass a budget for
this year, as required by LAW?"DN,Budgets begin in
the house. A house controlled by Republicans. The Reps can easily pass any
budget they want and then blame the Senate Dems for not passing it.Which is exactly what has happened. At least be honest.How about
this. R and D work together to craft a budget that is passable?And
worf, budgets should be done every year. One was done in the early years.
Since, both sides have played politics, rather than concoct a passable
budget.The house has not even tried.
However and whatever is done, we've simply got to reduce the size of
government - irregardless of party affiliation. We must insist on a
"true" balanced budget amendment, with no more tax increases, unless
they are offset by tax and/or government decreases. I fear the train of bigger
government is moving too fast, and will soon jump the track. It would be
refreshing to see our elected officials, do what's necessary for the
country, and not their own self-interests.
Last second heroics by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but still
"Spending cuts would be deferred." Half-baked castor oil measures do
nothing to attack the creeping fiscal cancer where another cliff is lurking,
completion of this one will no doubt collide with the pending National Debt
Limit cliff. It's a proven fact that there are precious few
mountain-climbers in Congress so how are these cliffs ever to be resolved?
My, my, we see what a wonderful, comprehensive and bi-partisan solution that was
reached by our government representatives (proving to all that they are indeed
true statemen) at the last minute between the Congress and the White House,
Democrats and Republicans, in the best interest of the country-----NOT!!!
A bad deal is worse than no deal. If their "deal" is all taxes and no
spending cuts, it is worse for the country, economy and future than no deal ans
must be rejected.Why is no one demanding that Reid and his Senate at
least pass a budget for this year, as required by LAW? Without that, it is hard
to identify any changes in our disastrous spending plans, but perhaps that is
the intent.Focusing on taxes and ignoring spending is a deliberate
distraction by the Democrats to deflect attention from the real problem, and
where the real solutions MUST be focused.To our Congressional
delegation, especially Orrin Hatch and Jim Matheson, if there are not
significant spending cuts in the "deal" you must vote against it.
Early in his first term, the President had a democratic majority in both the
House, and the Senate.He could have passed any budget. He passed
no budget.Who is to be blamed?