Published: Friday, Jan. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Speaker give up and say any
deal would have to come from the Senate (a duty that probably Constitutionally
should have originated in the House)? Did the Senate not come up
with a deal? Did not the deal pass?Sounds like the Senate Majority
Leader did a lot more than the Speaker. Know if you like the deal is another
debate entirely, but you can't criticize Harry Reid for doing nothing.To suggest he did nothing is a lie, to suggest he did nothing because he
was too busy with gun control is two lies.
deficit..gun control..and, and..just plug in a democrats name and off we go.
$16.3 trillion national debt today and according to the congressional budget
office, this new "fiscal cliff" deal will add another $4 trillion to it
in the next 4 years= $20 trillion! Democrats and most Americans don't care,
but they will, when it will be too late! Note to Obama and the Democrats; you
can run from the national debt, but you can not hide from it for much longer!
Just another partisan rant from Mr. Bender. Always blaming one side when it is
clear from this debacle that both parties are unable to work together. I have no
love for Mr. Reid, but to hang all of this on him or the Democrats is
disingenuous, ignorant, and willfully partisan.
Shame on Harry Reid for not bringing the house bill to the floor last August,
when it passed the house. The senate had plenty of time to debate, amend, and
return it to the house, per the constitution. Reid singlehandedly abused his
position to block it. Reid promised to do the same with everything else the
house proposed. That is why the speaker said it had to come from the senate, to
appease Reid.Then this bill, Reid allowed no discussion, no debate,
and just minutes to read it. It is 157 pages. The senators had to vote blindly,
and they voted for it, so they wouldn't get blamed for doing nothing.House got to read it, but no debating or amending, by senate demand.
Debate is supposed to happen in the congress. It allows for
'cleansing' of the bills of all the pork and deeply partisan stuff in
them. Reid wanted no cleansing.The house voted for it, for the same
reason as the senate.Anyone getting a paycheck just got a tax
increase, even those below the poverty line.Reid and the democrats
raised taxes on us all. We are not all rich.Shame on them!!
Darrelhere is the correction you asked for.The house
sent numerous budget bills to the senate last year. reid neglected his duty as
a senator, choosing instead his position as chief partisan antagonist, and never
allowed any of those bills to come to a vote.reid, knowing he has
the SEIU to stuff ballot boxes for him, knows he does not have to be a public
servant and does all he can to advance the dem agenda, regardless of the damage
it does to our fiscal position.
Reid is the epitome of why we have a disfunctional government.
I could've swore Obama was re-elected, Senator Reid remains Seante
Leader and gains seats, and wasn't it Rep. John Boehner who lost
seats in "his" House, lost the tax hikes on the 1%, lost re-pealing
Obamacare, lost capping the deficiet ceiling, and darn near lost his
own Speaker-ship? ect., ect., ect.Honestly Mr. Bender...Did
the GOP win anything in the "Fiscal Cliff" deal?But go ahead
with your "all things Democrat are evil" rants.Most of us
KDave,"Reid is the epitome of why we have a disfunctional
government."Sure is. And so are Boehner and McConnell. Is there
a particular reason why you think this is party-specific when many political
analysts believe both parties are to blame for this gridlock?
Really mountainman..adds 4 trillion to the debt..that's only true if you
assume that all the Bush tax cuts would expire and stay expired. The 4 trillion
is the taxes you and everyone else who makes under 400K won't pay. Now if
your original position was let all the tax cuts expire we want everyone to pay
higher taxes then I might believe your positon..but I don't think
that's what you were arguing. Given your original position that none of
the Bush tax cuts should expire, this bill actually adds over 600billion in
Pragmatistferlife. We are all going to pay more taxes, not just the rich and the
aristocracy in the White House will spend it all plus another $4 trillion in 4
years, and that according to the CBO. Argue with them if you can.
We need to understand where our massive debt comes from. First and
foremost, it can be traced to Reagan's blind addiction to supply-side,
trickle-down economics. Cut taxes on the wealthy from 70 percent to 28 percent
and just watch how the revenue comes rushing in.Second, pretend that
the Baby Boom generation was never going to retire.Third, embrace
the most poorly designed health-care system in the industrialized world and
refuse to learn anything from countries that offer quality care at half the
price we pay.Fourth, declare two unnecessary wars and fund them with
tax cuts.Fifth, launch an expensive Medicare drug program and fund
it the same way we funded the two wars.Sixth, allow Wall Street to
regulate itself, then pay for the predictable and necessary bailout.Seventh, make a solemn pledge to a government-hating lobbyist that you will
never vote for a tax increase, no matter how many of your constituents want you
to.Eighth, keep funding the military-industrial complex as if World
War II and the Cold War were still in full swing.Oh, and then there
is some government waste. So let's focus exclusively on that.
The SS tax went back to the rate it has been since 1983. The President got a 2%
reduction in the rate to stimulate the economy. It was never intended to be
permanent. Also, it was the Republicans who insisted on ending it now, the
President wanted to keep it for another year or two.
LDS?libBO was re-elected POTUS, not supreme dictator (though I'm sure
you would have been happy with that.)tell me, what is the seante?
what is a deficiet
@lost in DCThe bills the House passed during the summer were nothing
but statement bills that had no chancing of passing a democratically controlled
Senate, let alone a signature from the President. Rather than trying to get
work done, they were trying to score points in their respective districts.What the Senate did was get a bill that passed overwhelmingly in the
Senate, and got enough votes from both parties in the House to pass. While not
perfect, it showed what politics can be like when people try to work with not
against each other.
Darrel: Sending the bill in August could have been a starting point
for the compromise, but the Senate (via Harry Reid) stonewalled it. They could
have amended it and sent it back. That is how the system is supposed to work.
That is the constitutional process for reaching a compromise.What
the senate did instead was a power play. Personally I think the demand for a no
debate vote in both houses was unreasonable. Senators didn't even get to
read it before the vote. Another week on the cliff would not have hurt anything.
Everyone sensed the urgency to get it done, but doing it right, with the $2
spending cuts for $1 increased revenue as the president offered, would have been
worth a few days or even a couple of weeks debate while over the cliff.Harry Reid put asserting his power and his party's power ahead of what is
best for the country. He sat on that bill for over 4 months and waited to play
his trump card. Republicans should have added the cuts and sent it back to the
senate.As a conservative American, I feel completely betrayed by the
national leadership of both parties.
Darrel,so unless the bill from the house (as required by the constitution)
is exactly what the dictator-in-charge in the senate demands, they should not
even bother sending it? Ah, just chuck the constitution and let the dems run
rough shod. harry reid's failure to act on ANY of the bills
sent is nothing more than a statement on his small-minded partSee
also Christian 24/7's response.
Mountainman..who's arguing..SS went back to where it was suppose to be to
keep it viable, and you got to keep your 35% tax rate..and the argument is?
Kent C. DeForrestProvo, UTExcellent comment!May I
suggest you "cut and paste" it for use it again and again until the
ultra-Cons understand why their AM radio college-drop-out entertainers are so
Strange causes for the current issues. I do agree on the retiree issue, but all
have done that. Clinton raided the SS trust fund to balance his budget, claiming
if the federal government owed itself it wasn't a deficit, but that money
was not the government's, but actually belonged to future retirees. As for the other stuff, you are way off. Try these on instead:1. Fuel use has exploded but our production has not. That means we have to buy
it elsewhere, resulting in a massive trade deficit, which puts a constant strain
on the money supply. You think the rich are sitting on our money? Yeah, the ones
in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Iraq. Our first hints of a problem with this were
in the 70's. No administration has dealt with this. There is plenty of
blame to go around.2. China get most favored nation status resulting
in further trade deficits (see #1)3. Government mandated, in the
90's, home loans based on color instead of based on ability of repaying,
and guaranteed the government would back the loans that went bad. This fueled
reckless lending, irresponsible borrowing, housing bubble, and then the bubble
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments