PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Fold!!!!



Sev
12-16-2010, 09:09 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Democrats abruptly drop spending fight

Looks like their dog wont hunt. </span>


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BD5C320101217

By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON | Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:24pm EST
(Reuters) - Democrats abruptly abandoned a fight over spending on Thursday and said they would instead extend government funding on a temporary basis, a move that gives Republicans a greater chance to enact the deep cuts they have promised.

The surprise agreement looked likely to end a high-stakes game of chicken that could have led to a shutdown of wide swaths of the U.S. government when current funding expires on Saturday night.

Like the $858 billion tax deal poised to clear Congress over the objection of liberal Democrats, the agreement on funding reflects the new clout Republicans enjoy in Washington after a sweeping victory in November congressional elections.

Democrats had hoped to pass a $1.1 trillion spending bill that would fund everything from national defense to preschool programs before January, when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives and hold more seats in the Senate.

Republicans in the Senate had blasted the 1,924-page bill as a wasteful boondoggle that ignores voters' concerns over government spending, and called for a temporary extension of the current bill.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said nine Republicans had agreed to back the bill, which likely would have given him enough votes to pass it. But Republican support evaporated in recent days, he said.

"In reality we only have one choice, and that's a short term" funding bill, Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid said he would work with the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, to figure out how long the temporary extension should last.

McConnell introduced a measure earlier in the day that would extend current funding until February 18, 2011.

The fiscal year began on October 1, but the government has been operating on an extension of last year's budget because Congress has been unable to pass any of the 12 bills that fund everything from prisons to scientific research.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

Qtec
12-17-2010, 01:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Durbin: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The $1.1 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill Is <u>‘Exactly The Number’ McConnell Asked For</u></span>

Senate Republicans have spent the last few days acting shocked and outraged over this year’s omnibus spending bill, which would fund the government through next Sept. 30. Republicans are threatening to derail the lame duck session and shutdown the government over the “disrespectful” measure.

Leading the Republicans’ reckless campaign over the omnibus spending bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor this morning to publicly denounce the 2,000 page bill. Aghast over its physical enormity, McConnell parroted the GOP talking points on the bill: it was dropped in the dead of night, it “runs just under 2,000 pages,” and “it spends more than half a billion dollars per page.” McConnell dropped his own one-page continuing resolution that would hold the government at current spending levels until Feb. 18.

Overhearing McConnell’s tantrum, Senate Majority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) came to the floor. Acknowledging that the omnibus does indeed cost over a trillion dollars, Durbin offered one small helpful reminder to assuage McConnell’s “horror” over the figure: that $1.1 trillion number was “exactly the amount” he asked for himself:

DURBIN: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I’m a member of the Appropriations Committee. And I remember what happened…this is the reality…It’s true it’s over a trillion dollars. In fact, it’s $1.1 trillion in this bill. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>But what hasn’t been said by Senator McConnell and Senator Kyl, that’s exactly the amount that they asked for! </span>Senator McConnell came to the Senate Appropriations Committee and said Republicans will not support this bill unless you bring the spending down to $1.108 trillion. That is exactly what we bring down to the floor to be considered.

So to stand back in horror and look at $1.1. trillion and say where did this figure come from, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>it came from Senator Mitch McConnell in a motion he made before the Senate Appropriations Committee. </span>It reflects the amount that he said was the maximum we should spend in this current calendar year on our appropriation bills. He prevailed.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> It’s the same number as the so-called Sessions-McCaskill figure that’s been debated back and forth on this floor, voted repeatedly by Republicans to be the appropriate total number.</span> So we have the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>bipartisan agreement on the total number, and now the Republican leader comes to the floor, stands in horror at the idea of $1.1 trillion, the very same number he asked for in this bill.</span> You can’t have it both ways </span></div></div>

BTW.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that<span style='font-size: 23pt'> McConnell has $112 million in earmarks in the omnibus bill. </span></div></div>



link to video (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/omnibus-hypocrisy/)

Q

LWW
12-17-2010, 04:08 AM
Whatever is put on the spoon is still your mantra I see.

The bill that the dems just gave up on was $1.3T ... now, let's review. Which is greater .... $1.3T or $1.2T? By my lightning fast calculations $1.1T is roughly $200B less than $1.3T.

So, technically, the $1.3T bill did in fact contain the $1.1T ... but it also contained $200B more.

Anything else I can help you follow along with?

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/omnirip.jpg
<span style='font-family: Microsoft Sans Serif'><span style='font-size: 8pt'>I'm curious what Gee will fabricate from this to to accuse me of.</span></span>

LWW

Qtec
12-17-2010, 04:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bill that the dems just gave up on was $1.3T </div></div>

From YOUR link.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats had hoped to pass the <u>$1.1 trillion</u> spending bill before January, </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Appropriations Committee and said Republicans will not support this bill unless you bring the spending down to <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>$1.108</u></span> </div></div>

Anything else I can help you with because you can't seem to handle simple arithmetic.

The dif between 1.108 and 1.1 is 8 billion, not 200 billion.

Q

Qtec
12-17-2010, 04:43 AM
BTW,

......yet again you had nothing to say about what I posted and the <u>HUGE Republican hypocrisy</u>.

Q

LWW
12-17-2010, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bill that the dems just gave up on was $1.3T </div></div>

From YOUR link.

Q </div></div>

I didn't post a link, but you live in fantasyland so I understand.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.</div></div>

THIS IS A LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9K5BA5O0&show_article=1)

THIS IS ALSO A LINK (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132121851/reid-drops-nearly-1-3t-spending-bill-in-senate)

THIS IS NOT A LINK

Can you tell the difference?

LWW

LWW
12-17-2010, 05:12 AM
Which huge hypocrisy are you babbling about now?

LWW

Qtec
12-17-2010, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From YOUR link. </div></div> My bad. The original poster's link.

Your links are AP and Breitbart!!!

My link is to the ORIGINAL source. Does Breitbart know better than Durbin? Is that what you are saying?

Get real. Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> DURBIN: <span style='font-size: 26pt'>I’m a member of the Appropriations Committee.</span> And I remember what happened…this is the reality…It’s true it’s over a trillion dollars. In fact, it’s $1.1 trillion in this bill. But what hasn’t been said by Senator McConnell and Senator Kyl, that’s exactly the amount that they asked for! </div></div>

LWW
12-17-2010, 05:57 AM
Being that Durbin is an idiot and a serial liar, I believe he does.

LWW

pooltchr
12-17-2010, 07:56 AM
Sev, this is probably a smart move politically by the Dems. Had they passes a huge spending bill at the end of their term, they would have paid for it in 2012. By passing it along to the Reps, they force them to actually make the budget cuts they promised. If they don't, the Dems will use it against them. And if they do, you know that cutting services is going to leave those directly affected by the cuts unhappy, and the Dems will be able to use that against them.

It's really pretty smart on their part. Don't do anything, and then whatever happens, blame the Reps!

Steve

Sev
12-17-2010, 08:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Durbin: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The $1.1 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill Is <u>‘Exactly The Number’ McConnell Asked For</u></span>

Senate Republicans have spent the last few days acting shocked and outraged over this year’s omnibus spending bill, which would fund the government through next Sept. 30. Republicans are threatening to derail the lame duck session and shutdown the government over the “disrespectful” measure.

Leading the Republicans’ reckless campaign over the omnibus spending bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor this morning to publicly denounce the 2,000 page bill. Aghast over its physical enormity, McConnell parroted the GOP talking points on the bill: it was dropped in the dead of night, it “runs just under 2,000 pages,” and “it spends more than half a billion dollars per page.” McConnell dropped his own one-page continuing resolution that would hold the government at current spending levels until Feb. 18.

Overhearing McConnell’s tantrum, Senate Majority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) came to the floor. Acknowledging that the omnibus does indeed cost over a trillion dollars, Durbin offered one small helpful reminder to assuage McConnell’s “horror” over the figure: that $1.1 trillion number was “exactly the amount” he asked for himself:

DURBIN: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I’m a member of the Appropriations Committee. And I remember what happened…this is the reality…It’s true it’s over a trillion dollars. In fact, it’s $1.1 trillion in this bill. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>But what hasn’t been said by Senator McConnell and Senator Kyl, that’s exactly the amount that they asked for! </span>Senator McConnell came to the Senate Appropriations Committee and said Republicans will not support this bill unless you bring the spending down to $1.108 trillion. That is exactly what we bring down to the floor to be considered.

So to stand back in horror and look at $1.1. trillion and say where did this figure come from, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>it came from Senator Mitch McConnell in a motion he made before the Senate Appropriations Committee. </span>It reflects the amount that he said was the maximum we should spend in this current calendar year on our appropriation bills. He prevailed.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> It’s the same number as the so-called Sessions-McCaskill figure that’s been debated back and forth on this floor, voted repeatedly by Republicans to be the appropriate total number.</span> So we have the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>bipartisan agreement on the total number, and now the Republican leader comes to the floor, stands in horror at the idea of $1.1 trillion, the very same number he asked for in this bill.</span> You can’t have it both ways </span></div></div>

BTW.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that<span style='font-size: 23pt'> McConnell has $112 million in earmarks in the omnibus bill. </span></div></div>



link to video (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/omnibus-hypocrisy/)

Q </div></div>

The earmarks were from an appropriations bill from last February.

I greats to see the Dems plan to try an force 12 appropriation bills all at once just before Christmas go up in smoke. Guess they thought they could go 2 for 2.

Sev
12-17-2010, 08:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sev, this is probably a smart move politically by the Dems. Had they passes a huge spending bill at the end of their term, they would have paid for it in 2012. By passing it along to the Reps, they force them to actually make the budget cuts they promised. If they don't, the Dems will use it against them. And if they do, you know that cutting services is going to leave those directly affected by the cuts unhappy, and the Dems will be able to use that against them.

It's really pretty smart on their part. Don't do anything, and then whatever happens, blame the Reps!

Steve </div></div>

Possibly. But it puts raising taxes on the table for 2012 as well.

I would love to see Obama continue to support Reaganaomics. Which is what he just did with extending the Bush tax cuts and declaring that raising taxes would hurt the economy.

Qtec
12-18-2010, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/stewart-skewers-gop-blocking-911-responders-bill/ </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Senator McConnell came to the Senate Appropriations Committee and said Republicans will not support this bill unless you bring the spending down to $1.108 trillion," he continued. "That is exactly what we bring down to the floor to be considered."

"So to stand back in horror and look at $1.1 trillion and say where did this figure come from, it came from Senator Mitch McConnell in a motion he made before the Senate Appropriations Committee. It's the same number as the so-called Sessions-McCaskill figure that's been debated back and forth on this floor, voted repeatedly by Republicans to be the appropriate total number."

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The bipartisan Sessions-McCaskill spending cap limits defense-discretionary spending to $564,293,000,000 and nondefense-discretionary spending to $529,662,000,000 in the 2011 fiscal year: a total of nearly 1.1 trillion dollars. </span></div></div>

Q

Qtec
12-18-2010, 04:48 AM
You should watch the video. 12 different sub committees have working on this in a bipartisan manner for a year.

At the last moment, the GOP votes no. They filled it with pork and now they don't want to pass it because its got too much pork it.

FKG lying hypocrites.


Q