Obama the Obstructionist

[BigBadBrian]

LINK
As a part of the budget deal struck last August, automatic budget cuts will hit the federal budget across the board starting next year. Republicans in Congress have been working to try to identify a spending cuts package that doesn't slash Pentagon and Homeland Security funding.
The proposed budget from the House GOP would instead make steeper cuts in social services - like the food stamp program, which is at an all time high - and make cuts to Obamacare. Democrats in Congress have supported many of the GOP's budget proposals, and yet the Obama Administration is in favor of a blanket veto no matter what.

The Associated Press writes that Obama wants the GOP to "work with him to produce a larger deficit-cutting package," yet at the same time will refuse any budget that cuts any programs "below levels agreed to in last summer's budget pact." That effectively means that President Obama is unwilling to discuss anything other than the across-the-board cuts that are already scheduled to take place. This is pure incoherency coming out of the White House.

A gentle reminder about the Democrats' ability to be responsible stewards of the federal budget: it has been over 1000 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget. The Obama Administration's budget proposals have received zero votes in Congress despite multiple votes. (That's zero votes from anyone, including Democrats and Independents.) Yet the Obama Administration sees it fit to make blanket declarations about what is and isn't on the table and threats to veto any form of a budget that comes out of Congress. That's not governance. That's pure, unabashed ideological politicking. Who's the obstructionist now?

[FORD]

If the House would offer a budget that wasn't written by an Eddie Munster looking Randtard idiot, maybe the Senate could take it seriously?

[Seshmeister]

LINK
As a part of the budget deal struck last August, automatic budget cuts will hit the federal budget across the board starting next year. Republicans in Congress have been working to try to identify a spending cuts package that doesn't slash Pentagon and Homeland Security funding.

[Hardrock69]

The government could cut defense spending by HALF, and would still be spending 3 times as much as China, and probably more than everyone else on the planet combined.

OOOh....so what if they are going to cut defense spending by, say, 10% or so? What the fuck is wrong with that?

[knuckleboner]

LINK
it has been over 1000 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget.

this is entirely untrue. it has been 1000 days since the senate passed a budget RESOLUTION. they are COMPLETELY different things. a budget resolution sets top line revenue and spending numbers in the various categories for 1 year and provides a 5 year NON-BINDING blueprint for future numbers. again, it's important to point out the the 5 years are NON-BINDING. a budget resolution to be in force needs to pass both chambers, but is not signed by the president because it's not law.

however, the senate did pass the Budget Control Act (you know, the one your article references...) which was signed by the president and IS law and which sets 10 years of spending caps. BINDING spending caps. because they're in law.

so really, anybody who keeps making the "the senate hasn't passed a budget" argument is either: 1) stupid, or 2) a spin doctor.

[Seshmeister]

The government could cut defense spending by HALF, and would still be spending 3 times as much as China, and probably more than everyone else on the planet combined.

OOOh....so what if they are going to cut defense spending by, say, 10% or so? What the fuck is wrong with that?

I'm afraid it would seriously hamper the campaign funds of the people that voted for it.

Also it's used as a very very inefficient form of welfare and is the oil that makes the system work. European countries have expensive welfare programs that employ people and stop the poor from revolting. In the US this money is given to defense contractors in return for jobs for their voters and campaign contributions that then go from the politicians to the media in the form of advertising. This circle jerk is lubricated by wars which provide a justification for the spending, popularity to politicians and ratings to the media. It's just a pity all this effort and resources couldn't be used in a better way while still keeping the jerking going and without tens of thousands of people having to be killed. How about building some big spaceship to Mars or something instead of the weapons spreading out the work among all the swing states? (Did I just stumble of the reason why Cape Canaveral is in Florida?)

Instead I guess we'll continue to spending money we don't have to kill people we don't know for reasons we don't understand.

[BigBadBrian]

however, the senate did pass the Budget Control Act (you know, the one your article references...) which was signed by the president and IS law and which sets 10 years of spending caps. BINDING spending caps. because they're in law.

so really, anybody who keeps making the "the senate hasn't passed a budget" argument is either: 1) stupid, or 2) a spin doctor.

You're trying to dazzle us with all those lawyerly words and verbal technicalities.

They are basically the same thing. A budget resolution is nothing more than a piece of legislation tacked onto another piece of legislation in effect of giving forth a BUDGET.

No matter how you slice it, Hairy Reid has been a dismal failure as Senate Leader.

[BigBadBrian]

You and the rest of Europe are welcome ( for the protection, that is ).

[BigBadBrian]

OOOh....so what if they are going to cut defense spending by, say, 10% or so? What the fuck is wrong with that?

You may have a valid point, however, every time the DOD tries to slash it's budget, it's usually at the expense of the troops and their dependents (pay, benefits, retired benefits, amenities around the bases, new housing, etc.) and not deployment costs or weapons programs.

Ask Secretary Panetta why Obamacare extends civilian medical insurance to people to age 26 under their parent's plan AT NO COST while the DOD equivalent (Tricare Young Adult) costs military retired dependents $206 a month? There is also a plan to increase healthcare costs for military retirees over the age of 65. That will hurt.

Are you telling me those things are fair but when I go into the grocery store and see food stamp recipients buying lobster, steak, and crab with food stamps and then using their own funds to pay for shit food stamps doesn't cover (like booze, mainly)? I'm not saying Obama is totally at fault for this. Both parties need to pull their heads out of their ass and provide realistic spending cuts.

[BigBadBrian]

Another thing, why does my state keep adding more money to welfare payments for every baby Shaniqua and Merlene poops out? Why don't they cap the payments to the amount of kids she has when she first went on welfare like New York state does? A question for my local representative, I guess.

[Nickdfresh]

You're trying to dazzle us with all those lawyerly words and verbal technicalities...

You mean like facts and logic? Try not to get a headache reading his posts, pinhead!

[Nickdfresh]

You and the rest of Europe are welcome ( for the protection, that is ).

Against what, exactly?

[knuckleboner]

You're trying to dazzle us with all those lawyerly words and verbal technicalities.

They are basically the same thing. A budget resolution is nothing more than a piece of legislation tacked onto another piece of legislation in effect of giving forth a BUDGET.

No matter how you slice it, Hairy Reid has been a dismal failure as Senate Leader.

i agree completely about harry reid.

but i could not disagree more on whether or not i'm just using lawyerly terms. i'm describing the LAW. these things matter. it's meaningless to talk about not passing a budget if we can't agree on what a budget actually means. because, i assume you know that the U.S. went many thousands of days without a "budget," like more than 70,000 days, since the act that created the budget resolution was not passed until 1974. somehow, from 1776 to 1974 the U.S. managed to operate ok. mostly because a budget resolution might be a nice thing, but in no way is it the same thing as a BUDGET.

[knuckleboner]

You may have a valid point, however, every time the DOD tries to slash it's budget, it's usually at the expense of the troops and their dependents (pay, benefits, retired benefits, amenities around the bases, new housing, etc.) and not deployment costs or weapons programs.

Ask Secretary Panetta why Obamacare extends civilian medical insurance to people to age 26 under their parent's plan AT NO COST while the DOD equivalent (Tricare Young Adult) costs military retired dependents $206 a month? There is also a plan to increase healthcare costs for military retirees over the age of 65. That will hurt.

Are you telling me those things are fair but when I go into the grocery store and see food stamp recipients buying lobster, steak, and crab with food stamps and then using their own funds to pay for shit food stamps doesn't cover (like booze, mainly)? I'm not saying Obama is totally at fault for this. Both parties need to pull their heads out of their ass and provide realistic spending cuts.

i agree with you here. cutting unnecessary weapons systems (like EFV) are often far tougher politically, but do far less harm than cutting active duty and veterans benefits.

and, i agree that both sides need to be more realistic about spending cuts. but i'd add on that the same needs to be said about revenue. we are at lower tax rates than we were the last time we had a balanced budget. they didn't harm the economy. so asking people - be they lower income receiving foodstamps, or veterans on tricare - to sacrifice a bit because we need to attack deficits shouldn't occur unless we at least address revenue in some way, too.