Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 somehow, this is so not suprising. More borrow and spend conservatism... It's nice to know that the only reason I even considered voting for bush has yet to materialize. It makes it easier to vote democrat. All through the elcection we had to listen to tax and spend liberalism. Bush and his buddies seem to have come up with the only thing worse than tax and spend, just ask greenspan, who is now beginning to sing a different tune on bush borrow and spend economic plan. Not only did the senate reject cuts in spending, they increased the tax cuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44042-2005Mar17.html Senate Rejects GOP Budget Cuts House Deficit-Reduction Moves Thwarted By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A04 The Senate last night dealt a slap to President Bush and the Republican leadership, approving a 2006 budget that would gut much of the GOP's deficit-reduction efforts by restoring requested cuts to Medicaid, education, community development and other programs. With their deficit-reduction targets disappearing, Senate Republicans also nearly doubled the budget plan's tax cuts to $134 billion over five years. The budget passed 51 to 49, with four Republicans voting no. The Senate's actions set up a major fight over budget priorities, as the Senate, House and White House try to iron out an agreement that would allow for the first entitlement cuts since 1997, as well as oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The House yesterday narrowly passed a tough $2.6 trillion budget that includes $69 billion in entitlement cost cutting, with as much as $20 billion in savings from Medicaid, the government's primary health program for the poor. "Certainly it appears it is going to be challenging," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa). On Wednesday, the Senate budget plan barely survived an effort to strip out parliamentary language opening the refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The language would protect drilling legislation from a filibuster, allowing it instead to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. But that parliamentary protection will happen only if the House and Senate agree on a compromise budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Likewise, House and Senate budget writers hope to use the same parliamentary protections to begin tackling the growth of entitlement programs, such as agriculture subsidies, student loans and especially Medicaid. But the Senate signaled that it may not have the will. By a vote of 52 to 48, senators moved to strip $14 billion in Medicaid cuts and instead establish a commission to explore policy changes to slow the program's growth. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) implored his colleagues to stick with the cuts. "The essence of this budget is . . . whether or not our generation, the baby-boom generation, is going to be willing to stand up and admit we put too much on the books for our children to bear," Gregg said. But opponents of the Medicaid cuts argued that federal and state policy experts should be given time to work out changes to the Medicaid system before Congress sets arbitrary spending limits on the program. "In good times and bad, the people you don't abandon or put at risk are the people in most need," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who wrote the amendment with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). Ultimately, seven Republicans -- Smith, Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- joined all 45 Senate Democrats to block the Medicaid cuts. The Senate then approved amendments to add $5.4 billion for education, $2 billion for health research, $2 billion for community development, $855 million for law enforcement and other first responders, $500 million to combat AIDS worldwide, and $78 million for small-business development. After pulling back from spending cuts, the GOP voted to increase the size of the budget's tax cuts from $70 billion over five years to $134 billion. The additional $64 billion is intended to repeal a 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits claimed by relatively wealthy seniors, but under budget rules the tax authority could be used for other purposes and would not be subject to a filibuster. "This is not a perfect bill," Gregg conceded before the final vote. "This is not the bill I would choose if I had the magic wand." The Senate's moves put House leaders into a difficult position. The House passed its budget 218 to 214, with 12 Republicans voting against it, some of them because the cuts were not deep enough for them. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), a leading member of the Budget Committee, struck a conciliatory tone, saying House members are likely to accept spending numbers that are slightly higher than the House-passed budget. The Senate's language on the Alaskan wildlife refuge will provide a strong reason to compromise, he added, because a large majority in the House favors drilling in the area. But leading conservatives signaled they are far less willing to compromise. "I think most House conservatives believe no budget is better than a bad budget," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). House Republican leaders portrayed their budget as a serious effort to gain control of a federal budget deficit that reached a record $412 billion the last fiscal year. The budget would cut non-security domestic spending at Congress's annual discretion from $394 billion to $391 billion in the next fiscal year. Under the budget, House committees would have until September to produce a bill that cuts entitlement spending growth by $69 billion over five years. The cuts could come from agriculture, student loans, pension programs and environmental cleanup. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) called the budget "an assault on our values and . . . a blueprint for fiscal disaster," with budget cuts to poverty programs making way for $106 billion in tax cuts assumed in the House budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Kinda hard, Iggy, when Repubs-in-Name-Only vote against a proposal or bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Very embarrasing, I want to see Bush veto this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Ignatius, I'm confused. Didnt Bush propose the cuts? Why blame him like you did at the start of your thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Yeah that sucks.. its Rhino's ruining a good plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 Skin, On the simplest level, I think republicans would have felt they needed to return to fiscal conservatism if Kerry had defeated bush. Also, as things stand right now, it would be hard to argue that Kerry would have us in a WORSE financial state. It appears that republicans work best without a republican in the white house. As a second point, I mention bush and his buddies because I don't think Bush is going to veto the budget. He never has, so why expect it now? So, what we have is bush talking the talk, but not walking the walk. On a vote this close, you don't think the white house could have pulled a little if they had wanted to? It seems to me the president decided to waste his political capitol on his plan to spend more money on social security, instead of going to the heart of the real problem with spending cuts. He came out and talked about it, but got nothing done it now appears. Granted it may be too soon to jump on him, and I'll retract everything if he vetos this budget, but I just don't see that happening. If this were a one time thing, I'd agree that my bashing is premature, but this is how it has been under bush since he got here. He talks about cuts when it helps beat out the liberals, and then gets nothing done. Even if you credit bush with championing spending cuts, his tax cuts are irresponsible right now. There have been a few statements from greenspan trickling through the news that seem to indicate that with the downturn in revenues, he is beginning to support tax increases if the government will not stifle spending. That particular aspect is exactly bush's MO. Borrow and spend, that way people won't notice that thier real tax rates are going through the roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. Skin, On the simplest level, I think republicans would have felt they needed to return to fiscal conservatism if Kerry had defeated bush. Also, as things stand right now, it would be hard to argue that Kerry would have us in a WORSE financial state. It appears that republicans work best without a republican in the white house. As a second point, I mention bush and his buddies because I don't think Bush is going to veto the budget. He never has, so why expect it now? So, what we have is bush talking the talk, but not walking the walk. On a vote this close, you don't think the white house could have pulled a little if they had wanted to? It seems to me the president decided to waste his political capitol on his plan to spend more money on social security, instead of going to the heart of the real problem with spending cuts. He came out and talked about it, but got nothing done it now appears. Granted it may be too soon to jump on him, and I'll retract everything if he vetos this budget, but I just don't see that happening. If this were a one time thing, I'd agree that my bashing is premature, but this is how it has been under bush since he got here. He talks about cuts when it helps beat out the liberals, and then gets nothing done. Thank you for mentioning that it may be premature. I will also agree with you if he doesnt veto. I think this term will be different than last in the free spending area, at least on Bush's part. I can't speak for congress, they are too irratic to predict sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 I guess there's no reason to argue about this, but why do you give him the benefit of the doubt? He has never vetoed anything in his life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. I guess there's no reason to argue about this, but why do you give him the benefit of the doubt? He has never vetoed anything in his life! Different time, different bills, different circumatances. I often give benefit of the doubt to almost anyone these days out of simple fairness to the individual. No sense crying over unspilled milk! In this case a Veto would support his own stated position and would be in response to some rouge GOP'ers who turned the tide in this vote. It is in his best interest for the GOP as a whole to veto. I can only hope though, and you are correct that history may dictate pessimism. Not for me yet though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 good for you then. I agree there is more reason to be optimistic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas It is in his best interest for the GOP as a whole to veto. I can only hope though, and you are correct that history may dictate pessimism. Not for me yet though! I will bring this thread up Skin when the bill passes and we are debating on the merits of reducing spending, so I am forwarning you now, don't go down that path when he fails to veto the spending. I would be suprised if Bush even knows what a veto is, let alone how to use it :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics I will bring this thread up Skin when the bill passes and we are debating on the merits of reducing spending, so I am forwarning you now, don't go down that path when he fails to veto the spending. I would be suprised if Bush even knows what a veto is, let alone how to use it :doh: Do you often only read parts of my posts? These are my words in the post just prior to the one you quoted. I don't really need your warning dude! We don't always have to be at odds in every issue, do we? "Thank you for mentioning that it may be premature. I will also agree with you if he doesnt veto. I think this term will be different than last in the free spending area, at least on Bush's part. I can't speak for congress, they are too irratic to predict sometimes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. good for you then. I agree there is more reason to be optimistic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Do you often only read parts of my posts? These are my words in the post just prior to the one you quoted. I don't really need your warning dude! We don't always have to be at odds in every issue, do we? "Thank you for mentioning that it may be premature. I will also agree with you if he doesnt veto. I think this term will be different than last in the free spending area, at least on Bush's part. I can't speak for congress, they are too irratic to predict sometimes." Skin, I am simply telling you not to back the spending bill a week from now when we are debating this issue, because I will bring up this thread where you agree with IJ about Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Skin, I am simply telling you not to back the spending bill a week from now when we are debating this issue, because I will bring up this thread where you agree with IJ about Bush. I'm embarrassed for you that you need to resort to threats over somthing that hasnt happened yet and since I said it would not, I am a bit offended by your comments. I respect your views as your own and I don't think it's proper to behave the way you just did with no justification beyond pure assumption of my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 cho, I think you should give skin a little more credit than that. He does not have a track record for supporting one thing and then going to another thread and supporting the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. cho, I think you should give skin a little more credit than that. He does not have a track record for supporting one thing and then going to another thread and supporting the opposite. I appreciate you for this. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 no problem jackhole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. no problem jackhole. I definitely deserved that one!!!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Does it help to know had quit smoking and was subject to horrible mood swings not too long ago? No excuses as the libertarian says!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. cho, I think you should give skin a little more credit than that. He does not have a track record for supporting one thing and then going to another thread and supporting the opposite. No he doesn't, but it is one of the few times I've seen him go against the administration. I was simply letting him know that I will call him on it if he toes the party line. But the real reason for the post is when we are debating this bill a week from now, I know I can go to a thread where SnV won't be. Skin, just playin' with ya' man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics No he doesn't, but it is one of the few times I've seen him go against the administration. I was simply letting him know that I will call him on it if he toes the party line. But the real reason for the post is when we are debating this bill a week from now, I know I can go to a thread where SnV won't be. Skin, just playin' with ya' man You will never escape me!!! I am the shadow! we're still groovy man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas You will never escape me!!! I am the shadow! we're still groovy man! :laugh: Your not a bad guy, just a bit misguided. . .but on a personal level you're pretty decient to deal with Now enough ballwashing, I just bashed you in the other thread :laugh: j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 bump from about 7 years ago. Wonder what would have happened if those cuts had been made then instead of kicking the can down the road... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 God, I was such a freaking neo-con hack then. embarrassed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.