OFFLINE

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders and the Obama administration aired proposals yesterday designed to steer around a risky confrontation over the federal budget and lead to a political compromise.

The moves came as talks opened between Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders over how to shrink the deficit. But those talks were quickly overshadowed by Republican leaders' statements conceding a political reality - that their far-reaching plan to privatize Medicare is not moving forward any time soon.

"I have not taken Medicare off the table, but the president has," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the majority leader, said after the meeting with Biden. "The reality is, this president has excoriated our budget plan and the Medicare proposal."

Instead of such an ambitious plan, congressional Republicans are pressing for a series of steep but less-dramatic spending cuts as their top deficit-reduction strategy. Both sides also talked of making a commitment to long-term budget reductions that would be enforced by so-called "trigger" mechanisms that could automatically impose deficit reductions if Congress fails to act in years to come.

Such mechanisms would postpone many of the most difficult budget decisions until after the next election.

Before Congress went on its mid-April recess, the two sides had appeared to be heading toward a showdown over the budget and the federal government's borrowing limit. Yesterday's comments indicated a shift. They came against a political background that has changed substantially in intervening weeks - a president strengthened by rising poll numbers and Republicans pummeled by angry voters at town-hall meetings and targeted in Democratic ads during the recess that accused them of seeking to destroy Medicare.

Both sides expect weeks of hard bargaining and political theatrics between now and an eventual vote to raise the federal government's borrowing limit - something Congress will have to face before the end of July.

Deep divisions remain over tax increases and spending cuts, and both parties are divided over how much to compromise. But the two sides agreed to meet next week in a sign of the seriousness of the effort to rein in spending as part of an agreement to lift the legal debt limit beyond $14.3 trillion.

this story...virtually every word i read infuriates me. why do the republicans continue to fold and pass the buck? don't they understand that the changes we need to make will not be popular? someone is going to have the bite the bullet, and they said it would be them. this is the same thing that happened with those "historic spending cuts" that don't add up to jack ****. they just keep backing down. THIS IS NOT 2008! IT'S OKAY TO STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY BELIEVE IN!

without entitlement reform, we're wasting our time trimming around the edges of the budget. in just 30 years, entitlements will make up 80% of our current budget, and i think it's pretty clear that our current budget spends WAY too much.

what is the liberal counter argument? what is their solution? they don't have one. which is why continuing to kick the can down the road - waiting for a better time to do it - isn't going to cut it anymore. we're quickly running out of time, while our politicians can't muster the political will to make the hard but necessary decisions. absolutely makes me sick.

OFFLINE

You know, I heard it said today,"same clown, different face" referring to political parties.  Pretty sure that's exactly how I feel about all politicians/parties.
They all lie.  They all use slight of hand tricks.  Yes, I am speaking of our dear leader, as well.   Business as usual and I don't expect much of a change.  I will vote with my party as i always do but with a feeling of futility.  Discouragement.  Yesterday, after not ending the 4 billion in tax subsidies to the oil companies (which are making RECORD profits) when they have cut off heating assistance to the poor, I have little hope in change.

OFFLINE

how about we cut out all subsidies, and let businesses and industries thrive or die based on whether or not their products or services are in demand? and you're right politicians from both parties are just as addicted to this government machine we've created for ourselves. it's crony capitalism. whoever's friends with the party in power gets all the kickbacks, and in return those in power get campaign financing from those businesses and industries. and it gets even worse when the government decides to take over industries or companies outright.

establishment republicans and establishment democrats play this game. as for the rest of us, i think we can be divided into two categories. those who realize we're out of money, and have to make drastic changes in order to save what we can of america, and those who don't yet realize just how bad it is, and what a challenge our kids and grandkids will face.

but here's my real frustration. see, the democrats believe in spending more money. they believe in more government funding, and more government "oversight," if you will. so democratic politicians are doing what they're supposed to. they're securing more and more funding for their pet projects, and enacting new laws to regulate whatever they can think of every day.

republicans on the other hand are supposed to be the antithesis of this. they're supposed to believe in more fiscal responsibility and limited applications of government, yet once they get tainted by washington, and play the game well enough to move into any kind of leadership position, they're doing the same thing as the big government democrats. so at least democrats ARE being represented, but not true conservatives. the closest thing we have to representation has been mocked and ridiculed by the left to the point that they're almost marginalized. or at least that's what they want.

OFFLINE

if the republicans were smart, they would have said, "okay, we'll cut the oil subsidies, if you trade us NPR and planned parenthood in return." then it's win/win for fiscal conservatives. let all these businesses do business for themselves.

OFFLINE

Is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results each time called insane in some circles???

How long will we watch our government throw money at the same problems before we say "Stop it. It ain't getting better". I'm talking not only about the way we handle entitlements, but also about trying to create markets by giving profitable businesses handouts.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
Is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results each time called insane in some circles???

How long will we watch our government throw money at the same problems before we say "Stop it. It ain't getting better". I'm talking not only about the way we handle entitlements, but also about trying to create markets by giving profitable businesses handouts.

you know marky mark, it's so bad that we'd be better off starting over from scratch. the system is so screwed up that we basically need a fundamental restoration. there are just SO many things that need to be changed, that in order for it to happen, there would need to be a monumental shift in the government culture.

i still hold out hope, but i think we've already lost america.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

i still hold out hope, but i think we've already lost america.

Try looking down the back of the couch, that's where you normally find things...

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
Is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results each time called insane in some circles???

How long will we watch our government throw money at the same problems before we say "Stop it. It ain't getting better". I'm talking not only about the way we handle entitlements, but also about trying to create markets by giving profitable businesses handouts.

you know marky mark, it's so bad that we'd be better off starting over from scratch. the system is so screwed up that we basically need a fundamental restoration. there are just SO many things that need to be changed, that in order for it to happen, there would need to be a monumental shift in the government culture.

i still hold out hope, but i think we've already lost america.

Pretty soon we will have no choice but to start from scratch. It's the inevitable rise and fall of nations.

Me and the funky bunch are getting prepared.

Anyway, here are some more expenditures/year that **** me off:
1. Israel, $2.4 billion
2. Egypt, $1.7 billion
3. Pakistan, $798 million
4. Jordan, $688 million
5. Kenya, $586 million
6. South Africa, $574 million
7. Mexico, $551 million
8. Colombia, $541 million
9. Nigeria, $491 million
10. Sudan, $479 million

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
Is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results each time called insane in some circles???

How long will we watch our government throw money at the same problems before we say "Stop it. It ain't getting better". I'm talking not only about the way we handle entitlements, but also about trying to create markets by giving profitable businesses handouts.

I think thats what the Tea Party intended to do.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
Is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results each time called insane in some circles???

How long will we watch our government throw money at the same problems before we say "Stop it. It ain't getting better". I'm talking not only about the way we handle entitlements, but also about trying to create markets by giving profitable businesses handouts.

I think thats what the Tea Party intended to do.

it did, which is why the establishment loathes them. even the republican establishment. because it poses a real threat to the established order. you think the republican elites really want a democratic uprising of the people? a reclaiming of our country? they fear that ALMOST as much as the democrat elites do. the only difference is that they pay lip service to the tea party, and hope to use its enthusiasm to further their cause.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
if the republicans were smart, they would have said, "okay, we'll cut the oil subsidies, if you trade us NPR and planned parenthood in return." then it's win/win for fiscal conservatives. let all these businesses do business for themselves.

Oil and Ag subsidies for NPR?  Deal!  At first I was against defunding CPB (organization that disperses funds to NPR, PBS, etc), however I'm getting tired of NPR bending over for the Tea Party (been like that since their funding was threatened).  While it will slightly hurt them and some partner stations would go off air, its not a huge part of their budget (less than 2%).  

Planned Parenthood is a bit touchy.  I am morally opposed to abortion in all cases that where there is not a serious threat to the mothers life, however abortions are a small percent of what PP does.  I've known people who have benefited from their birth control programs as well as their pregnancy check up programs (thats right, many of their clinics offer support to low income mothers who plan to go threw with their pregnancies but can't afford other care).  If you can find another organization that can offer these services as efficiently and widely as PP that doesn't offer abortions, then please transfer the federal support, but until then he federal grants to PP are indispensable to many poor.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
if the republicans were smart, they would have said, "okay, we'll cut the oil subsidies, if you trade us NPR and planned parenthood in return." then it's win/win for fiscal conservatives. let all these businesses do business for themselves.

Oil and Ag subsidies for NPR?  Deal!  At first I was against defunding CPB (organization that disperses funds to NPR, PBS, etc), however I'm getting tired of NPR bending over for the Tea Party (been like that since their funding was threatened).  While it will slightly hurt them and some partner stations would go off air, its not a huge part of their budget (less than 2%).  

it's a deal for me because it cuts spending and the size and influence of government. see, for me, everyone of those cuts are a benefit.

Planned Parenthood is a bit touchy.  I am morally opposed to abortion in all cases that where there is not a serious threat to the mothers life, however abortions are a small percent of what PP does.  I've known people who have benefited from their birth control programs as well as their pregnancy check up programs (thats right, many of their clinics offer support to low income mothers who plan to go threw with their pregnancies but can't afford other care).  If you can find another organization that can offer these services as efficiently and widely as PP that doesn't offer abortions, then please transfer the federal support, but until then he federal grants to PP are indispensable to many poor.

i don't see why it would be touchy at all. even if you were pro-abortion, cutting the federal purse strings wouldn't mean that PP has to shut down, or stop offering services. bottom line, they don't NEED federal money. they are a business, so let them do business, like every other business that doesn't have a piece of the federal pie.

if they are a good business, they will flourish. they're already the coke brand of abortion clinics, and have name recognition. so why is it just they need funding.

and as for all the other services they provide, these are the same services offered at every walk in clinic, health department, and yes, even doctor's office across the country. it's not as if there would suddenly be an absence of places to go if PP did have to shut down. the only service they offer that these other places dont, are abortions.

and i think the problem a lot of people have with this, is that there's no separation between the abortion side of PP, and the clinic side of PP. to be honest, they obviously try to hide behind their clinic operations, so as not to lose their fed dollars. if they want to keep their federal funding (which i would still be against), then why not form two companies working out of the same buildings, so none of the federal money is thrown into the same pot that funds their abortion operations?

OFFLINE

and i do just have to say, why is it okay for federal money to fund radio and television networks that are sympathetic to liberal causes, but not conservative causes?

or i'm sure that if you are more liberal, that you probably think their liberalness isn't liberal, but just "down the middle," right?