Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-06-2013, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,097,852 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
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.
In reference to which budget? The Republicans have been trying to stop ACA since 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2013, 08:59 AM
 
2,672 posts, read 2,712,519 times
Reputation: 1041
If they are close to an agreement its because Republicans are getting nervous about the sequester cuts to defense spending. Defense spending is the Republican version of welfare-stimulus spending for the red states. Other wise I really cant imagine Paul Ryan striking a deal with the democrats. He is the Republican version of Lucy holding the ball and pulling it away when the Dems-Charlie Brown think they have a deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:10 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,659,141 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
According to Politico, GOP Rep Paul Ryan and Dem Rep Patty Murray are getting close to agreeing on a bi-partisan budget deal:

RYAN, MURRAY CLOSE ON BUDGET DEAL | POLITICO

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.
So this is how our form of government works? Two people sit down and brainstorm the federal budget? I'm really not guessing the founders envisioned gangs of eight, four or two, writing legislations and bills and then thrusting them on 600+ representatives to vote up or down, after a couple days of bombastic floor speeches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:12 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,659,141 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid View Post
If they are close to an agreement its because Republicans are getting nervous about the sequester cuts to defense spending. Defense spending is the Republican version of welfare-stimulus spending for the red states. Other wise I really cant imagine Paul Ryan striking a deal with the democrats. He is the Republican version of Lucy holding the ball and pulling it away when the Dems-Charlie Brown think they have a deal.
Actually the conservative Republicans want to bite the bullet and keep the sequester cuts in force, because it's the only successful way they have found that is actually reducing federal spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,097,852 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
So this is how our form of government works? Two people sit down and brainstorm the federal budget? I'm really not guessing the founders envisioned gangs of eight, four or two, writing legislations and bills and then thrusting them on 600+ representatives to vote up or down, after a couple days of bombastic floor speeches.
Actually this is how almost every bill is created, this bill would still have to go through the House, Senate, and President....so I think it is how our founders created our government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 11:01 AM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,950,451 times
Reputation: 2325
So higher taxes... oops, "fees" rather for the poor and middle class, Awesome!

Quote:
There will be new revenue flowing into government coffers in any budget agreement, but not by the way of additional taxes, which Boehner, Ryan and other Republican leaders have adamantly ruled out.

Instead, Ryan and Murray are looking toward increased fees on airline tickets and other cost increases passed along as “user fees” for government services.
I hope the Senate kills this just out of principle. A fee for government services is not a tax in name only, and it is one that disproportionately will effect the middle class, poor and small business owners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 11:59 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Probably because each one of those budget bills were weak attempts to defend ACA. Or did you want us to ignore that fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
In reference to which budget? The Republicans have been trying to stop ACA since 2009.
true that the republicans have been trying to kill obamacare, but they didnt try to do it through the budget until later on after the scotus ruling was handed down. so your argument for budgets before that time are rubbish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
So higher taxes... oops, "fees" rather for the poor and middle class, Awesome!


I hope the Senate kills this just out of principle. A fee for government services is not a tax in name only, and it is one that disproportionately will effect the middle class, poor and small business owners.
the airlines get enough money from the government, so anyone using the airlines should pay more than they are now. and other fee for services should go up as well. if you are going to use government services, you should pay for them in usage fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Riverside
4,088 posts, read 4,379,286 times
Reputation: 3092
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Actually the conservative Republicans want to bite the bullet and keep the sequester cuts in force, because it's the only successful way they have found that is actually reducing federal spending.
This is correct- conservatives in the House want to extend the sequester:

Another Shutdown? Conservatives Push To Scuttle Budget Deal

Dems, on the other hand, are pushing to extend unemployment bennies.

Murray and Ryan have their work cut out for them. But I'm really hopeful for a deal, for the reasons stated in my OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 12:15 PM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,950,451 times
Reputation: 2325
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
the airlines get enough money from the government, so anyone using the airlines should pay more than they are now. and other fee for services should go up as well. if you are going to use government services, you should pay for them in usage fees.
Nearly half of the price of air travel is fees. The actual ticket from the airline is the cheap part.

Fees for services are an underhanded way of raising taxes that is disproportionately felt by the poor and middle class and [true] small businesses. The whole point of taxes is to pay for government services so unless Ryan is willing to have the street tolled in front of his house he is simply asking for a tax increase that doesn't affect the rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,403,608 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Actually the conservative Republicans want to bite the bullet and keep the sequester cuts in force, because it's the only successful way they have found that is actually reducing federal spending.
Lets be honest..."sequester cuts" didn't reduce federal spending, they reduced (by about 1%) the rate of INCREASE in federal spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top