Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The proposal would fund the gov for two years, and include spending cuts AND increased revenue ( through "fees"). Spending would increase to a level slightly higher than the one mandated by the current sequester cuts.
This could be a very good deal, for EVERY one- no more CRs, no more hostage- taking (at least on the budget)... and a refutation to those who claim government doesn't work, the two sides can't work together, etc.
The proposal would fund the gov for two years, and include spending cuts AND increased revenue ( through "fees"). Spending would increase to a level slightly higher than the one mandated by the current sequester cuts.
This could be a very good deal, for EVERY one- no more CRs, no more hostage- taking (at least on the budget)... and a refutation to those who claim government doesn't work, the two sides can't work together, etc.
the problem isnt in the house though, its in the senate, the problems name is harry reid. i have a feeling that even if every representative in the house voted for this budget deal, old harry would probably table the legislation like he has 30 or so other budget deals from the house.
Bi-partisan in the House? Boner would never allow that to be voted on and the far right wing teabaggers would just try and shoot it down because it would be too liberal.
Bi-partisan in the House? Boner would never allow that to be voted on and the far right wing teabaggers would just try and shoot it down because it would be too liberal.
rubbish, bohner will likely put it up for a vote on the floor if it passed through the committee. and yes there just might be some republicans voting against it, but on the other hand there will be democrats voting for it. the house has passed a number of budget bills since the republicans took over, some had bipartisan support, some didnt, but they all had one thing in common, they were ALL KILLED in the senate because harry reid tabled the bills and took no action on them.
rubbish, bohner will likely put it up for a vote on the floor if it passed through the committee. and yes there just might be some republicans voting against it, but on the other hand there will be democrats voting for it. the house has passed a number of budget bills since the republicans took over, some had bipartisan support, some didnt, but they all had one thing in common, they were ALL KILLED in the senate because harry reid tabled the bills and took no action on them.
Probably because each one of those budget bills were weak attempts to defend ACA. Or did you want us to ignore that fact?
Probably because each one of those budget bills were weak attempts to defend ACA. Or did you want us to ignore that fact?
Probably true, but that argument falls a little flat when you look back to the time before the ACA was being enacted and see the same behavior by Mr. Reid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
