House leaders predict budget deals passage

House Republicans Get Behind Budget Agreement : Videos

GOP leaders rally support for budget deal - YouTube GOP leaders rally support for budget deal - YouTube Budget chair Paul Ryan met behind closed doors with his fellow House Republicans, looking ... Duration: 142 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:52:17 -0800	Cantor and Ryan Comment on Budget Agreement ... Cantor and Ryan Comment on Budget Agreement ... House Republicans signaled support Wednesday for a budget deal worked out a day earlier ... Duration: 63 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:46:01 -0800	What Barack Obama, Republicans get with a deal ... What Barack Obama, Republicans get with a deal ... It's not a perfect deal for the White House — but it's a worse deal for ... but the emerging ... Duration: 59 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:01:02 -0700	[Full HD] Another Day Passes With No US Budget ... [Full HD] Another Day Passes With No US Budget ... 1 day ago - Senate leaders scramble to craft budget deal, but will House GOP buy it? ... that ... Duration: 151 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:17:36 -0700
Senate leaders restart fiscal talks after House GOP ... Senate leaders restart fiscal talks after House GOP ... House GOP leaders, after a closed door session, announced there would be no ... and raised ... Duration: 57 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:00:58 -0700	U.S. Appropriations Committee Republicans Urge 2 ... U.S. Appropriations Committee Republicans Urge 2 ... U.S. Appropriations Committee Republicans urge 2-year U.S. budget deal WASHINGTON ... Duration: 48 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:24:58 -0800	Senators seek budget deal, House GOP effort ... Senators seek budget deal, House GOP effort ... Senate leaders are optimistic about forging an eleventh-hour bipartisan deal preventing a ... Duration: 111 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:03:34 -0700	How Republicans and Democrats should make a ... How Republicans and Democrats should make a ... In that deal, House Republicans voted to increase the debt limit with a ... It also allowed House ... Duration: 155 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:22:40 -0700
Senate And House Reach Budget Deal To Avoid ... Senate And House Reach Budget Deal To Avoid ... Senate And House Reach Budget Deal To Avoid Another ... Senate leaders restart fiscal ... Duration: 627 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:22:22 -0800	House Democrats Offer Budget Deal - YouTube House Democrats Offer Budget Deal - YouTube House Democrats Offer Budget Deal House Democrats Offer ... House GOP Budget Rejected ... Duration: 56 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:15:50 -0800	Lawmakers announce bipartisan budget agreement ... Lawmakers announce bipartisan budget agreement ... For the first time in four-and-a-half years, a bipartisan budget deal is on the ... Senate ... Duration: 52 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:25:05 -0800	U.S. Budget Deal Puts Ryan in Spotlight Once ... U.S. Budget Deal Puts Ryan in Spotlight Once ... As House Republicans were being briefed Wednesday morning on the budget agreement ... Duration: 232 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:03:11 -0800
House, Senate Budget chairs reach deal to ... House, Senate Budget chairs reach deal to ... The chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, Rep. ... Wasserman Schultz Claims ... Duration: 185 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:47:50 -0800	President Obama Praises Congressional Leaders ... President Obama Praises Congressional Leaders ... The president hopes to get past this legislative impasse and focus on ... Obama Praises ... Duration: 226 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:48:02 -0700	Obama seeks budget deal with Republicans - YouTube Obama seeks budget deal with Republicans - YouTube President Obama has delivered his fifth annual budget proposal. ... White House comment as ... Duration: 61 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:08:04 -0700	House GOP pitches short-term debt ceiling hike ... House GOP pitches short-term debt ceiling hike ... House GOP leaders unveiled a plan on Thursday to extend the debt ... Congress and the ... Duration: 80 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:18:53 -0700
House GOP considers short-term deal on debt ... House GOP considers short-term deal on debt ... House Republicans would likely have to agree to a clean short term debt ceiling ... 1 dia ... Duration: 141 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:01:39 -0700	House GOP, Obama at standstill over government ... House GOP, Obama at standstill over government ... The House Republican Conference met Saturday morning to mull the ... Paul Ryan, R-Wis ... Duration: 160 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:21:02 -0700	House GOP Cancels Vote Senate Leaders Resume ... House GOP Cancels Vote Senate Leaders Resume ... House Republicans on Tuesday night canceled plans to vote on their ... in December unless ... Duration: 123 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:31:03 -0700	Democrats reject latest US budget deal - YouTube Democrats reject latest US budget deal - YouTube Democrats reject latest US budget deal. US Democrats have rejected a proposal from House ... Duration: 134 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:14:40 -0800
Cantor and Ryan Comment on Budget Agreement ... Cantor and Ryan Comment on Budget Agreement ... House Republicans signaled support Wednesday for a budget deal worked out a day earlier ... Duration: 63 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:22:47 -0800	House GOP debt effort puts Senate talks on hold ... House GOP debt effort puts Senate talks on hold ... "There are a lot of opinions about what direction to go. .... Senators seek budget deal, House ... Duration: 116 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:30:21 -0700	House GOP Opt for 'Plan B': Little Chance of ... House GOP Opt for 'Plan B': Little Chance of ... Prospects for a budget agreement before Christmas looked slim as the House moved towards ... Duration: 624 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:39:17 -0800	Congress Budget Deal Breaks Partisan Gridlock ... Congress Budget Deal Breaks Partisan Gridlock ... Congressional negotiators reached a modest budget agreement Tuesday to restore ... Duration: 80 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: youtube.com on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:52:24 -0800

House Republicans Get Behind Budget Agreement : Photo Gallery

THE TOWER OF BABEL. IS STILL WITH US BUT NOW ITS NOTHING BUT BABBLE THE TOWER OF BABEL. IS STILL WITH US BUT NOW ITS NOTHING BUT BABBLE THE TOWER OF BABEL. IS STILL WITH US BUT NOW ITS NOTHING BUT BABBLE	THE LEFTIST CHUCK HAGEL YOU DONT KNOW......... BECAUSE YOUR LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE (formally known as mainstream media) DOESNT TELL YOU THE LEFTIST CHUCK HAGEL YOU DONT KNOW......... BECAUSE YOUR LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE (formally known as mainstream media) DOESNT TELL YOU THE LEFTIST CHUCK HAGEL YOU DONT KNOW......... BECAUSE YOUR LEFTIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE (formally known as mainstream media) DOESNT TELL YOU	THE EXTREME LEFTISTS PATH OF DESTRUCTION CONTNUES THE EXTREME LEFTISTS PATH OF DESTRUCTION CONTNUES THE EXTREME LEFTISTS PATH OF DESTRUCTION CONTNUES	WELL REMEMBER THE YES VOTES WELL REMEMBER THE YES VOTES WELL REMEMBER THE YES VOTES
UMMMM..WELL....WHY...UHHH.LET ME SEE OHH!.... ITS PROBABLY BECAUSE IM A ISLAMIC SYMPATHIZING THIEF... CROOKED CHICAGO POLITICIAN...... A SOCIALIST AND A TRAITOROUS LIAR....YA I THINK THATS WHY UMMMM..WELL....WHY...UHHH.LET ME SEE OHH!.... ITS PROBABLY BECAUSE IM A ISLAMIC SYMPATHIZING THIEF... CROOKED CHICAGO POLITICIAN...... A SOCIALIST AND A TRAITOROUS LIAR....YA I THINK THATS WHY UMMMM..WELL....WHY...UHHH.LET ME SEE OHH!.... ITS PROBABLY BECAUSE IM A ISLAMIC SYMPATHIZING THIEF... CROOKED CHICAGO POLITICIAN...... A SOCIALIST AND A TRAITOROUS LIAR....YA I THINK THATS WHY	Barack Obama, A Treacherous Fellow Barack Obama, A Treacherous Fellow Barack Obama, A Treacherous Fellow	VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012 VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012 VOTER FRAUD BY THE LEFT.....HOW THE NEW ACORN PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTION...............ACORNS NEW BRANDS.....THEY WILL USE SOME OF THESE TO TRY TO STEAL THE ELECTION IN 2012	THE POTUS AND THE REAL MAN .......AN AMERICAN DISASTER.....THANKS LIBTARDS THE POTUS AND THE REAL MAN .......AN AMERICAN DISASTER.....THANKS LIBTARDS THE POTUS AND THE REAL MAN .......AN AMERICAN DISASTER.....THANKS LIBTARDS
HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT Speaker John Boehner sharply criticized outside conservative groups opposed to year-end budget legislation on Thursday and said the measure "takes great steps in the right direction." Hours before a scheduled vote on the bill, Boehner repeatedly ...	House Republicans appear to be rallying behind $85 billion budget deal House Republicans appear to be rallying behind $85 billion budget deal After conducting a series of closed-door briefings and polling members during a late-afternoon vote, GOP leadership aides confidently predicted that the deal struck between House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) ... “We are either a party ...	Budget progress in the House, gridlock in Senate Budget progress in the House, gridlock in Senate Y., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, as they go before the House Rules Committee Wednesday.THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. By Laurie Kellman THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... Still, with the 2014 midterm election year fast approaching, there ...	US budget deal heads for tense vote in House US budget deal heads for tense vote in House WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner erupted in anger at conservative groups who oppose a rare bipartisan two-year budget deal on Thursday as lawmakers prepared to vote on the measure in the lower house.
House GOP leaders defend new budget deal House GOP leaders defend new budget deal House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) congratulated Ryan on “the hard work behind trying to get a deal in this divided government we're in.” He said it accomplishes deficit reduction and permanent federal pension reform, “and it doesn't raise taxes.	House Republicans signal support for budget deal House Republicans signal support for budget deal WASHINGTON — House Republicans signaled support today for a budget deal worked out a day earlier, a plan narrowly drawn but promoted as a way to stabilize Congress' erratic fiscal efforts, avert another government shutdown and mute some of the ...	US House Republicans voice support for budget deal US House Republicans voice support for budget deal WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday were falling in line behind a two-year budget deal negotiated behind closed doors, indicating that the normally rambunctious group of lawmakers is not spoiling for a ...	House prepares to vote on budget deal House prepares to vote on budget deal House Republicans are planning a Thursday vote on a bipartisan budget deal, one of their last legislative acts before leaving Washington for the rest of 2013. Despite some conservative opposition inside and outside the Capitol, Speaker John Boehner and ...
Key support for budget deal; deficits would rise Key support for budget deal; deficits would rise House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., left, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., announce a tentative agreement between Republican and Democratic negotiators on a government spending plan, at the Capitol in ...	No shutdowns: Republicans, seeking stability, back budget deal though it means ... No shutdowns: Republicans, seeking stability, back budget deal though it means ... WASHINGTON — A newly minted budget deal to avert future government shutdowns gained important ground Wednesday among House Republicans who are more accustomed to brinkmanship than compromise, even though it would nudge federal deficits higher three ...	Budget Deal Picks Up Steam Budget Deal Picks Up Steam WASHINGTON—House Republican leaders threw their weight behind a two-year budget deal, planning to bring it to a vote Thursday as opposition in both parties failed to gain enough traction to threaten passage. Few lawmakers expressed enthusiasm for ...	GOP, Obama line up behind modest budget deal GOP, Obama line up behind modest budget deal WASHINGTON — Top Republicans and President Barack Obama are lining up behind a modest but hard-won bipartisan budget agreement that seeks to replace a portion of tough spending cuts facing the Pentagon and domestic agencies. ... The measure unveiled ...
Details Of The Ryan-Murphy Budget Deal Reveal GOP Holds The Winning Hand Details Of The Ryan-Murphy Budget Deal Reveal GOP Holds The Winning Hand House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Oregon) have reached a two-year budget agreement guaranteed to make most Republicans and Democrats unhappy—with Democrats taking the bigger hit. ... Despite the fact ...	House leaders predict budget deal's passage House leaders predict budget deal's passage 11 (UPI) -- A federal budget deal struck on Capitol Hill will pass the U.S. House of Representatives with a majority of Republicans in support, party leaders predicted. The deal, struck between Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House budget committee ...	Budget Deal Gets House GOP Support; Sens. Coburn, Paul, Rubio Opposed Budget Deal Gets House GOP Support; Sens. Coburn, Paul, Rubio Opposed House Republicans signaled support Wednesday for a budget deal worked out a day earlier, a plan narrowly drawn but promoted as a way to stabilize Congress' erratic fiscal efforts, avert another government shutdown and mute some of the partisan rancor ...	All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact Tea party groups and fiscal conservatives wasted no time Wednesday in savaging a bipartisan budget agreement negotiated between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, drawing an unusually angry response from House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio ... Jim ...

House Republicans Get Behind Budget Agreement : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT - seattlepi.com

10 hours ago ... WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget
pact that promises to bring a temporary halt to budget ...

House Republicans signal support for budget deal - Toledo Blade

23 hours ago ... WASHINGTON — House Republicans signaled support today for a budget ...
type of legislation, but we have to get the spending issue completed so that ....
But key Democrats lined up behind Obama, especially after Ryan ...

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT | UTSanDiego.com

9 hours ago ... House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget pact that promises to
bring a temporary halt to budget brinkmanship in Washington ...

Senate Democrats Vow to Confront Bush on Iraq but Are Still Working Out the Details

Senate Democrats tried Thursday to bridge their political differences over how to confront President Bush on Iraq even as they acknowledged that agreement on an approach remained out of reach. We have not gotten our arms around how the caucus is going to move forward, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said as Democrats searched - Senate Democrats continue to search for united approach in confronting Pres Bush on Iraq; they seek plan that would satisfy antiwar lawmakers, retain support of partys centrists and win over some Republicans; initial proposal was scrapped after some Democratic critics of war feared that plans wording seemed to sanction almost any use Pres Bush might make of troops; Democrats play down party divisions and say they are determined to move legislatively on war; photo (M) - By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY

ECONOMIC VIEW; The Best of This Show May Be Gridlock

WHAT will Washingtons economic strategy look like in the next two years? With several possible election outcomes in Congress, its anyones guess. There is some common ground between Democrats and Republicans, but politics could easily get in the way of policies. The election next week offers these possibilities: the two parties will split control - Daniel Altman Economic View column on what Washingtons economic strategy will look like in next two years in wake of upcoming Congressional elections; holds to some analysts best state of affairs will be gridlock; studies by Cato Institute director Stephen A Slivinski and George Washington University Prof Sarah A Binder on benefits of divided government detailed; photo (L) - By DANIEL ALTMAN

Are the Democrats Looking Out For The Middle?

The Democrats and the liberal media constantly tell us that they want to tax the rich to balance the budget, so why didnt they, The Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress by super majorities, they were able to pass obamacare without a single Republican voting for the measure, so why didnt they pass legislation taxing the wealthy at fifty, sixty or seventy percent when they had the chance, instead they gave tax payer subsides to the same wealthy corporations they claim to despise.

Answer: Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing.

The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny.

One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united.

Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party.

"I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."
Category: Government

Older Residents Get Tax Relief, But Less of It

When Gov. Eliot Spitzer and legislative leaders announced $1.3 billion in new property tax relief late last month, they did not mention that older New Yorkers got largely cut out of the deal. But taxpayers 65 and older ended up with hardly any more money than they received last year under a program that now costs the state nearly $5 billion a year. - Property tax relief of $1.3 billion in new budget provides small relief for seniors in New York; those 65 and older who are eligible for enhanced School Tax Relief Progam, known as STAR, would see their property tax relief rise $2.50 on average to $1,512.50 when counting property tax exemption and rebate check provided by program (M) - By DANNY HAKIM

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT | www.bullfax.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget pact that promises to bring a temporary halt to budget brinkmanship in Washington and ease automatic budget cuts that would otherwise slam ...

Why havent the democrats capitalized on the balanced budget amendment?

The republicans have dropped the ball and now the democrats need to pick it up and run with it. Currently, the US makes $180 billion a month in revenue and spends $300 billion. Could the democrats retake the house and save the senate and presidency if they cut the annual deficit to $0 by 2012?

Haw Haw Haw. Good one huh?

Answer: Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing.

The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny.

One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united.

Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party.

"I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."
Category: Politics

Can someone write me a synopsis of this article? Not sure how to do it. (article provided for 10 points)?

WASHINGTON — The Senate Democrat involved in negotiations on a bipartisan health care bill has abandoned his hopes of reaching an agreement in principle by the time President Obama addresses Congress tonight.
Instead, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he will formally introduce a proposal of his own next week, and convene his panel on the week of Sept. 21. He said he believes Congress can carve out a bill by the end of the year.

"I very much hope and do expect Republicans will be on board," Baucus said.

Baucus language on Wednesday was much more resigned than that of the statements he made after meeting with the bipartsan group known as the "Gang of Six" for more than two hours on Tuesday. At that time, Baucus said, "It would be better for all concerned" if the group — which includes three Republicans and three Democrats — settled on the broad outlines of legislation today.

FAITH & REASON: Has compassion vanished?
"Time is running out very quickly," Baucus said in the earlier statements. "The rubber is starting to meet the road."

The group has been negotiating behind closed doors for months. Because lawmakers returned home for the August recess, the senators met face-to-face Tuesday for the first time in weeks.

Days before the meeting, Baucus circulated what he called a "framework" to members of the group that would require everyone to purchase health insurance beginning in 2013. "Exchanges" would be created at the state level to help people who do not receive their coverage through work to purchase insurance.

The 10-year, $900 billion proposed compromise would be paid for in part with new taxes and fees on health care insurers and other companies. It would not include a government-run health program, known as the public option.

Baucus said he asked the Republicans in the group —Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Chuck Grassley of Iowa — to submit their responses to his proposal by 10 a.m. today.

Republicans on the committee, including Snowe, were reluctant to agree to the quick timeline. Snowe, a moderate who was one of only three Republicans at the time to vote for the $787 billion stimulus this year, said she wants to hear Obamas speech tonight before moving forward.

In particular, Snowe said, she has reservations about a provision in the Baucus framework that would raise Medicaid income eligibility to 133% of poverty, or just more than $29,000 for a family of four.

Snowe said she is concerned about the burden that may impose on state budgets.

"It would be helpful ... to hear what he has to say on specifics," Snowe said of Obama. "I think Id rather give it a few more days and work through some of these issues."

Momentum for health care legislation slowed during the August recess as opponents turned out to town-hall-style meetings in droves to express their concerns about versions of the bill pending in the House and Senate.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who said he reviewed the Baucus proposal, said there is a good deal of bipartisan agreement, including that people with pre-existing conditions should not be denied coverage.

"I really hope that what well do is focus on those things that bring us together," Corker said. "Its my hope that (Obama) comes toward a middle ground."

Answer: I can do that.
Category: Other - News & Events

Budget deal reached; Murray, Ryan behind negotiations | Q13 FOX ...

Earlier, House Budget Committee Chairman Rep.Paul Ryan told reporters that “we're making really good progress, we're getting close.” ... With the Republican-led House leaving town on Friday for the holidays, negotiators worked for a deal this week to give Congress its best shot at weighing a spending proposal when it returns in early January to avoid another fiscal debacle as the new year gets underway. Ryan cited progress, but there were signs of pushback from ...

Ron Paul Supporters...Is Ron Paul a liberal? (long, but please read and respond)?

Many of his supporters describe themselves as conservatives, but they back a national security agenda which is almost identical with the radical left.

Refers the both the Cold War and the War on Terror a “farce”. He compares the U.S. role in Afghanistan to “a schoolyard bully.”

DEFICIT SPENDING: He claims to be for limited government but Ron and Rand Paul were among the few Republicans who opposed the Paul Ryan budget to reduce the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade. They said it did not cut enough, but they would not accept the Ryan plan as a starting point.

EARMARKS: He is the only GOP candidate who continues to support earmarks and pork barrel spending. He votes against every appropriations bill but only after making sure he has received his usual $400 million every year.

TRADE: He claims to support free trade but votes against every free trade agreement.

ABORTION: He claims to be pro-life, and says the Right to Life is the foundation for all rights in the Constitution. The truth is that he is really pro-choice on the state level. That is the purpose of his Sanctity of Life Bill. He is essential saying it is fine with him to kill a child if a state agrees.

IMMIGRATION: He claims to be against illegal immigration, but has voted against the border fence and the E-Verify program to stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. In fact, he is against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens.

He opposes Arizona’s get tough policies and the deportation of people who are here illegally. He claims to oppose amnesty but that is what his program advocates. If a state wants open borders that is fine with him. NumbersUSA gives him an “F” rating on immigration.

DEFENSE: Paul, 75, says he supports a strong national defense but the $1 trillion in Pentagon reductions he is seeking would end all modernization and readiness programs. It would return America to the hollow military of the 1970s when many service members were eligible for food stamps.

CIVIL RIGHTS: He is the only Republican in the House or Senate who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

FOREIGN POLICY: The Congressman says if he was President 1) He would not have authorized the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. 2) Iraq would have been allowed to take over Kuwait. 3) He would have done nothing if Saddam Hussein threatened to capture three-quarters of the worlds reserves by taking over the Saudi oil fields.

ISRAEL: He rarely fails to repeat propaganda from terrorist groups. He claims Israel is keeping food, medicine and humanitarian supplies out of Gaza, even though the Red Cross says this is not true and there is no crisis.

INTELLIGENCE: He accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out. Theres been a coup, have you heard? Its the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.



GOLD STANDARD: He is the author of four books advocating a return to the gold standard. It did not work in the past, and no country has ever been able to maintain it. Gold is not sound money and it can be easily manipulated.

ECONOMICS: Paul advocates the Austrian School of Economics which is totally ignored by mainstream academia. The standard economics texts used on the university level do not even mention it. There are no more than 75 scholars worldwide who follow the Austrian School while there are over 20,000 economists in the American Economics Association.
Dave....a simple statement like that leads me to think that you did not read this. If you did not, why bother to answer?
Peace be upon you....actually it is not my list. I am questioning some of it myself, but wanted people who were his supporters to refute the list with facts that they know. I am always looking to increase my knowledge, and this was a great way to get both sides, (or so I thought, but some of the answers were absolutely no help)
Okay...I put this up without my opinion involved for a reason. I do not agree with everything on that list...like Austrian economics is certainly better than Keynesian economics. And I am certainly aware of his states rights stances, and agree that anything not specified in the Constitution...that the feds address in any way...is unConstitutional and should be nullified on that basis alone. This is the same spin on those who say that he is pro-choice.

However, he DOES support earmarks and is quick to add his own earmarks.

But I still do not support his gutting of the military to the levels that he does. I cannot stomach the thought that he would not have given the go ahead to take out bin Laden. And his stance on illegals is pathetic and weak. And the idea to forfeit in the war on drugs and legalize them...creating another hell hole like Amsterdam...is INSANE

Other than that...and his naive belief that we could go back to the gold standard is laughable....I think that he is

Answer: I read this whole thing and I know at least one of your statements is incorrect. He is not against the Civil Rights Act that was an MSNBC spin of him saying he is for stronger states rights. This hurts your credibility in my eyes. If I am smart enough to not believe all the Fox propaganda I think you should meet me halfway and not believe all of your side's propaganda. We financed Iraq in their war with Iran and Paul just wants America to worry about America. I can see why you would worry about America not being imperialist at this point but that is what America was always meant to be. I could give a you know what about what goes on in other countries and would be happy to let other countries deal with the madness that goes on around the world. Austrian economics worked just fine in America before we our love affair with John Maynard Keynes. The fact that you don't want to explore an alternative economic belief system shows me that you're happy with the current economy and I don't understand that one bit. The gold standard thing there is no way we could do this with 14 trillion dollars of national debt but that same number could be used to discredit your belief that fiat currency works. Many people have accused the CIA of being part of the drug smuggling operation besides Ron Paul. It's a tough cookie to swallow I know but I have researched everything that Ron Paul stands for and it leads me to believe that the rabbit hole is very deep. He seems to be the only person willing to take America out of the hands of tyranny and into what America was always meant to be. You can thumb me down or block me I don't mind but there will come a time that you will see the reasoning behind it. I can see your reasoning but you refuse to see mine and that pretty much sums up America today for you. I wish you all the best in whatever you undertake in your life. Ron Paul 2012.
Category: Politics

WHITE HOUSE MEMO; Win, Lose or Draw, Bush Faces Unfamiliar Terrain

If the balance of political power in Washington changes on Tuesday, will President Bush change with it? From the moment Mr. Bush took office after winning the election but losing the popular vote, he has governed as if he became president by a landslide. Bad news -- legislative losses, plunging approval ratings, chaos in Iraq -- seems only to - Pres Bush enters final phase of his presidency knowing that his future depends on midterm elections and that no matter who controls Congress, he will have more difficult time governing; legislative losses, plunging approval ratings and chaos in Iraq seem only to stiffen his resolve to govern as if he became president by landslide; dip in unemployment rate and conviction of Saddam Hussein reinforce his confidence that his policies at home and abroad are correct; Bush and his aides are charting course they say will take president back to more bipartisan approach with Democrats: photo (M) - By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

debate question: has the internet compromised the objectivity norm in journalism?

i have this debate topic for my journalism course at uni,
i was just hoping to get a few negative/affirmative arguments as i really dont know where to start!!
Thanks :)

Answer: It has.. in that the polarization of political thought and strategies has taken a turn for the worst.

Read the cynical view of politics from the mouths of a democrats:

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was caught on tape on a conference call urging other Democrats to politicize the budget negotiations and claim Tea Party people and Republicans are “extreme.” Democrats’ goal is to blame Tea Partiers and Republicans for a possible government shutdown and to put Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a corner.

The behind-the-scenes glimpse of the Democrats' political message strategy came as Schumer, D-New York, was about to begin a telephone call with reporters to talk about negotiations with Republicans over government spending cuts.

"OK," Schumer could be heard telling senators who were preparing to address reporters on the call. "The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right."

"I always use the word extreme," said Schumer, the third-ranking Senate Democrat who is in charge of his party's political messaging. "That's what the caucus instructed me to do the other week."

As if on cue, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, opened the call by urging Boehner "to abandon the extreme right wing of his Republican caucus and come and compromise with us."

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, followed. He complained about "some of our right-wing extremist friends in the House."

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, was next. He urged Boehner that "this is not about satisfying the extreme elements of the Republican caucus."

The repetition on the theme went on from there.

The candid comments really weren't that different from anything Schumer has said publicly. Nevertheless, they came at a sensitive time for the budget talks and caused an instant backlash from distrustful Republicans.

"That's really not helpful if we are trying to reach an agreement here," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

"Chuck Schumer did us a favor, he exposed their tactic," said Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican leader. "He's basically instructing his members to deem any spending cut unreasonable. Any spending cut. So clearly they are not serious."

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican whip, accused Schumer of wanting "to engineer a political gain, which reporters could actually hear on a call. He's spending more time on politics that he's spending on policy. He's putting politics before people."

Asked by CNN about how the precall incident happened, Schumer shrugged, "I don't know." Then he quickly got back on message, arguing the cuts in the House Republican bill – HR 1 - go too far.
"I do think HR 1 is extreme. And almost everyone in our caucus does," he said before slipping onto the Senate floor.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/29/schumers-message-mishap/
Category: Media & Journalism

House Republicans appear to be rallying behind $85 billion budget ...

16 hours ago ... House Republicans appear to be rallying behind $85 billion budget deal ... “This
bill is not designed to get our vote,” said Rep. ... Glen Bolger, a leading
Republican pollster, said the budget deal puts House Republicans at a ...

Are any Democrats able to answer this question?

There will be no gotchas, I will lay out all of my findings and resources. I just want to know if there is anyone able to explain why the Democrat Party touts (in historical and present sense) their ‘fiscal responsibility compared to the Republican Party.

If we accept the postulate that if a party holds 2 of 3 seats (executive branch and 1 house or both houses) that they will most likely control the budget, then the results of the data are as follows:

Over the course of 108 years, Dems controlled 61 years and Reps controlled 47.

Federal debt increased from 2.143 billion (7/1/1901) to 13.561 trillion (9/30/2010). Not including supplemental appropriations since they aren’t included in budget figures.

Dems would own 7.382 trillion of debt and Reps would own 2.272 trillion.

Using the same process but looking at GDP, Total GDP from 1902 until 2010 would total 145.042 trillion.

Dems would own 64.740 trillion of GDP since 1902, and Reps would own 80.302 trillion of GDP.

If Dems controlled only controlled 16 additional years, why is the debt attributable to them 3 times as great and why would the total GDP for years they controlled be 16.438 trillion less than Reps?

Sources:
www.bea.gov
www.whitehouse.gov/omb
www.gao.gov
senate.gov
www.house.gov
*** sorry FLS.. ** even if we attribute all supplemental appropriations to Reps, (which the data does not support) that only adds 3.905 trillion
*** Dr Zaius, as much as I am a Planet of the Apes fan, I must disagree. Debt is purely linear, which includes yearly deficit (which is I think what you really mean) with the addition of supplemental appropriations.
***FLS, Ive been checking and wont comment on the inaccuracies in your list, but don’t take this so personal. I was surprised with the results myself, but all of the information and results are based on information gathered from the government websites listed above. I did not include any source but the government.
People- all I have listed here is what the government’s own records show. Yes, it is a very simplistic view of the economic patterns presented over time. Yes, we could take specific periods of time thereby removing parts that we don’t want so the data presents in a manner we prefer.
*** ok, let’s do a 50 year window and see if that makes everyone happier:

Dems debt = 5.502 trillion Reps debt= 2.285 trillion (remember, these #’s do not include previous surps)

Dems GDP= 13.058 trillion Reps GDP= 14.414 trillion

Power breakdown: Dems controlled 33 years Reps controlled 18 years
***I suppose I should have specified, the 50 year window goes back to 1960.
***this is true Chloe, knowing there likely arent many here that have taken any more than an introductory micro or possibly a combined micro/macroeconomics course in college, I have tried to make this as simple as possible. I am however confused as to why you would list the AFLCIO site as a reference knowing that economics shows unions to be inefficient. Not to tick anyone off, that is an economics term and is not a suggestion that union members are inefficient.
***Frank, actually I dont at all discount what you are saying- there definitely is and has been for a long time, an issue with money and the American political landscape. As if going through governmental budget records for the last 200 plus years wasn’t crazy enough, my newest hobby seems to be going through FEC filings (a long tedious chore I might add). Thank God I haven’t found a way yet to go through European records, though I feel being able to do so would likely show some of the very same characteristics that I am finding here.
***
I want to thank everyone for participating. I was hoping for a livelier discussion with more thought provoking commentary.

One additional note Chloe... I was hoping that your comment, "time for some more research" was suggesting that you were going to research and possibly return with data attempting to refute what I had posted. I do agree that presidents do in fact make decisions that are ‘not about spending that affect the economy’; the problem is that nearly all presidential decisions do affect the economy whether intentionally or not (presidential opinion alone whether, optimistic or pessimistic, will affect the mood of the nation as a whole thereby affecting consumption which after all is our economy). I will give you that the economy as a whole does follow a natural pattern of peaks and valleys and is affected by the global situation, but the longevity of those peaks and the severity of the valleys is a result of governmental policy and direction. Just a cursory observance o

Answer: Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing.

The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny.

One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united.

Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party.

"I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."

I'f you don't agree with any of this, you believe exactly what they wan't you to believe.
Category: Politics

whats George H.W. Bushs?

whats george h. w. bushs domestic policy?
and whats his views on foreign affairs?

PLEASE PUT URLS!! i cant seem to find it. i need a website that tells it. And dont use wikipedia.

Answer: Many of the domestic initiatives launched by the Bush administration pitted the president against a Congress under Democratic control. As the economy soured and the federal deficit soared, Bush was forced to renege on his "no new taxes" pledge of 1988. This action resulted in his losing support of hard-core conservatives and paved the way for a challenge from within his party during the 1992 election. Bush did enjoy some successes on the domestic front, particularly in his appointing of two justices to the Supreme Court, something the far more popular Reagan had been unable to do. In the end, Bush's domestic agenda was judged, by many, to lack vision and purpose. Indeed, as early as 1990, Bush's chief-of-staff John Sununu declared, "...there's not a single piece of legislation that needs to be passed in the next two years." With the economy growing at a meager 1% annually, and unemployment steadily rising, the public wanted to see more assertive action from the White House.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/41_g_h_w_bush/index.html
Bush's most dramatic departure from the Reagan years was his oft-spoken belief that government was not the enemy. Executing a series of small changes from the Reagan years, Bush tried to put in place the kinder and gentler politics for which he had campaigned. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 lowered legal and physical obstacles to citizens with disabilities and was one of the most sweeping pieces of civil-rights legislation in a decade. After the scandals of the Reagan years, Bush spoke often about the need for integrity in government. Behind the scenes, he quietly worked to increase federal spending for education, child care, and advanced technology research and development. He also signed into law a measure to improve the nation's interstate highway system and battled Congress on a crime bill to help police bring criminals to justice. After eight years of environmental disregard under Reagan, Bush moved swiftly in his first year to reauthorize the Clean Air Act, which established higher standards for air quality and required cleaner burning fuels. The reauthorization reflected an agreement between business interests and environmentalists that had eluded the federal government for years.

Bush also moved quickly to save a collapsing savings and loan industry. In 1980 and 1982 Congress had tried to help the financially troubled banking industry with legislation that allowed savings and loan associations to make riskier investments than they had previously been permitted. After the new laws were passed, more than 1000 savings and loan associations went bankrupt due to combinations of poor banking practices, poor government regulation, and outright corruption. In February 1989 Bush released a comprehensive plan to bail out the industry, and Congress reacted rapidly, rewriting oversight regulations and creating the Resolution Trust Corporation to take over bankrupt savings and loan associations and sell off their assets. Ultimately the bailouts cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Reagan's economic legacy was perhaps the biggest challenge Bush faced. By 1990 the federal budget deficit had swelled to $220 billion a year, three times its 1980 level. The total federal debt had increased to $3.2 trillion, more than three times that of ten years before. Bush believed that the incomes and standard of living of most Americans would not increase (and the United States would not be able to play a leading role in world affairs) if its economy was built on a foundation of debt.

As a result, in 1990 Bush launched an effort to persuade Congress to bring the deficit under control, but found it difficult to build a consensus acceptable to both Democrats and to conservatives in the Republican Party. Many Democrats in Congress believed tax increases on the wealthy were the best solution to the deficit. Conservative Republicans, by contrast, believed that the deficit could be cured only through deep and sustained cuts in federal domestic spending. Finding an acceptable compromise would have been difficult for any president; for Bush, who never enjoyed the trust of his party's powerful conservative wing, it proved nearly impossible.

In the debate over the budget, Bush's Democratic rivals in Congress consistently outmaneuvered him. First, they forced him to agree to sign a statement calling for tax revenue increases, before negotiations over budget details began. Bush apparently did not perceive that many would see the statement as a repudiation of his most celebrated campaign promise (“no new taxes”), and when word of his agreement was made public, many Republicans felt betrayed. When the Democrats and Bush agreed a few months later to a historic package of spending cuts and tax increases that reduced the deficit by $500 billion over five years, angry Republican conservatives took revenge, abandoning the president and defeating the budget bill in the House of Representatives. Bush had to scramble to reassemble a measure that could win a majority, and to do so he had to accept almost all the Democrats' demands, including higher taxes and more spending. In popularity polls his approval rating slipped 20 points in one six-week period in late 1990. He would later say that the budget deal was a mistake and that he wished he had never agreed to it.

The unpleasant conclusion of the budget deal coincided with the onset of a mild recession in late 1990 that would last for only six months but linger in the public mind for nearly two years. Bush's third year in office was marked by a wave of corporate reorganizations that caused permanent layoffs of white-collar workers. Many of the newly unemployed were independents and Republicans, who had believed that their jobs were secure. At the same time the recession deprived Bush of the little credit he had achieved for the deficit-cutting deal. During the recession, federal spending on welfare and other government programs increased, wiping out much of the savings the budget deal had promised.

In 1991 Bush proposed a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, which would lower or eliminate tariffs on trade between the three nations. The proposal, favored by Canada and Mexico, was designed to help North America compete against the growing free-trade zones of Europe and Asia. The agreement was eventually taken up by his successor, Bill Clinton, and ratified by the U.S. Congress in November 1993.

After two years, Bush had reached the end of his agenda for domestic legislation. His advisers told him that he had done everything necessary to guarantee his reelection. The recession would pass in a short period and, they told him, the public would reward him for his prudent guidance. Bush admitted that he found domestic policy unpleasant and troublesome and preferred to wrestle with foreign policy. At a press conference in October 1990 Bush said that he found foreign policy more enjoyable.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571000_2/george_h_w_bush.html
American voters did not perceive that President Bush cared enough about domestic issues. Some observers have criticized Bush for not "selling" his achievements more successfully and running an inept campaign in 1992. He alienated the more conservative wing of the Republican Party in a variety of ways including breaking his promise not to raise taxes and cutting military spending. Conservatives felt he had betrayed the Reagan Revolution. He was also not helped by his unfair image as a rich Ivy Leaguer who was out of touch with average Americans; despite living much of his adult life in Texas, he could not overcome the stereotypes associated with his privileged New England background.
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/bush/essays/biography/8
Category: Other - Politics & Government

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT — Buzz ...

House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget pact that promises to bring a temporary halt to budget brinkmanship in Washington and ease automatic budget cuts that would otherwise slam the Pentagon and ...

The Clinton Referendum

Winters first storm punished the White Mountains of New Hampshire on the Friday before Thanksgiving, rendering the terrain all but impassable. And yet in Gorham, a small town 50 miles from the Canadian border, hundreds of people shuddered patiently in the snow, in a line that snaked halfway around Gorham Middle-High School, while Secret Service - Matt Bai article says Sen Hillary Rodham Clintons chances of winning Democratic presidential nomination may well depend on how Democrats sort out their mixed feelings about Bill Clintons presidency, both politically and emotionally; describes how Sen Barack Obama and former Sen John Edwards are seeking to stoke misgivings within party about Clintonism in three ways: attacking Bill Clintons tendency to water down progressive agenda in pursuit of middle ground, arguing that his economic policies favored Wall Street over working people and--especially from Obama--addressing sense of weariness with partisan battles of Clinton era (L) - Matt Bai, who covers national politics for the magazine, is the author of The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. www.mattbai.com. - By MATT BAI

how would you rate bushs tenure in office and why?

which term was better, what did he do wrong, was it his fault, what did he do right, was it his doing, etc. etc

Answer: President George W. Bush’s economic performance looks less than stellar. Not a “failure”, but below average. His first term was only 9th best of the last 14 full Presidential terms and his second term so far is tied for second-worst, just above Carter’s single term.

As President Clinton immediately preceded George W. Bush, these two Presidents are often compared economically. By the (lagged) GDP growth numbers, their relative ranking is not all that clear, since President Bush’s first term was better than the term immediately preceding it, President Clinton’s second term, and Bush’s second term is not yet over. By the lag method, his second term is not even half over. Still, President Clinton averaged 3.2% real growth compared to Bush’s 2.2% so far.

I will grant that economic performance was generally better under Clinton than under Bush. Some of that might be luck and some might be policy.

Luck, good or bad, is certainly part of it. President Clinton was lucky by inheriting an accelerating economy from Bush 41, and possibly by having Republican majorities in both houses of Congress his last six years. Bush 43 was unlucky in (1) inheriting a decelerating economy from Clinton, (2) the 9/11 attacks, (3) Hurricane Katrina and some more recent ones, and (4) a hostile Democratic opposition in Congress, especially the Senate, which could and would filibuster just about anything he favored.

Concerning policy, if you were to look only at the budgets they signed into law, you would think Clinton was a Republican and Bush a Democrat.

Clinton championed the NAFTA free-trade agreement and signed it into law.

* Clinton cut the capital gains tax significantly.
* Clinton signed onto major Welfare Reform.
* Clinton signed Freedom to Farm, a major cut in agriculture subsidies.
* Clinton’s budgets led to the Federal government spending the smallest fraction of the economy since 1966.
* Clinton’s budgets were in surplus in his second term.

President Clinton did two “liberal” things. The first was a relatively minor tax increase on those making more than $200,000 per year, accomplished in his first years in office, before he had an all-Republican Congress feeding him his budgets. The second was reducing Defense spending as a fraction of GDP. The 9/11 attacks occurred at an historically low level of Defense spending, a level not seen since Pearl Harbor. (He also tried to nationalize the 15% of the economy that is health care, but the attempt was unsuccessful.)

By contrast,

Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare/Medicaid, the largest increase of entitlements since LBJ.

* Bush supported increased steel and lumber tariffs.
* Bush ended the Freedom to Farm effort and expanded ethanol subsidies.
* Bush signed on to increases in the minimum wage, the first increase in 10 years.
* Bush, with Ted Kennedy’s help, championed No Child Left Behind, a major expansion of the Federal government in to K-12 education as well as major spending increases.
* Bush’s budgets increased spending from about 18.4% of GDP to 20% and more. That cannot all be blamed on Defense and Iraq, either. Defense spending increased from about 3% of GDP to 4%, a relatively modest increase and a low total level by historical standards even in peacetime.
* Bush has not had a budget surplus since 2001.

President George W. Bush did two real “conservative” things economically: he cut income taxes modestly in his first term and he increased Defense spending.

It is hard to say we need a Democrat in the White House just because the economy was better under Clinton than Bush. On the other hand, it makes sense to say we need Republican policies in place for a better economy based on those same two Presidents. By all means, feel free to repeat Clintons policies of tax cuts, spending cuts and free trade.

If we were to grant that the economy under President Clinton was good (maybe better than Bush’s, but not as good as several other Presidents’, including Reagan’s), we should also attribute that to his policies, which were essentially Republican, and not to his party affiliation. We should also note that his last six years in office were with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

We should also not exaggerate. Clinton averaged 3.2% growth (with the lag). JFK and LBJ averaged 4.3%, Reagan averaged 4.1%, Nixon and Ford averaged 3.7% and Eisenhower averaged 3.6%. On the other hand, President Bush’s first term was better than his father’s, Eisenhower’s and Jimmy Carter’s, as well as LBJ’s and Clinton’s second terms.

Clinton wasn’t great and Bush isn’t terrible. More like a C+ and a C-. We have to wait another two years to get more solid numbers on Bush.


Category: Politics

No Progress On Resolving Tax Standoff

As New Jersey residents prepared to start their workweek with only fragments of a government, Gov. Jon S. Corzine and Assembly leaders remained at odds on Sunday over how to end the states first-ever shutdown. State services deemed essential, like child welfare and the state police, continued. But the states most popular tourist draw, the casinos - Shutdown of state services continues in New Jersey as Gov Jon S Corzine and Assembly leaders fail to end impasse over Corzines proposal to raise sales tax to 7 percent from 6 percent in order to help close $4 billion budget gap; most state workers are furloughed, and only services deemed essential continue; Atlantic City casinos are ordered to close on July 5; photo (M) - By DAVID W. CHEN and LAURA MANSNERUS

Key support for budget deal; deficits would rise - seattlepi.com

Among Republicans, House Appropriations Committee members also favored the budget deal, since it increased the likelihood they would be able to pass annual spending bills rather than rely on short-term stopgap bills that reduce their power over ... Y., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, as they go before the House Rules Committee to advance the budget compromise struck last night by Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sen.

How has the economic situation changed your life?

Have you had to cut out stuff or cut back or go on welfare or what ever? I have a paper to write about how the average America has had to sacrifice things over the last 5 years. So what has changed for you personally?

And ok fine to be fair if nothing has changed or if you have made money fine post also

and if you feel like really helping maybe put your income range in there maybe under 20k
20k - 80k
over 80k

but only if you want to



Answer: Thought you could use some info on the ecconomy last few years = most people not inclined to admit but from most ecconomic indicators we are doing pretty well. I have made money last 5 yrs, income -high,
x
President George W. Bush’s economic performance looks less than stellar. Not a “failure”, but below average. His first term was only 9th best of the last 14 full Presidential terms and his second term so far is tied for second-worst, just above Carter’s single term.

As President Clinton immediately preceded George W. Bush, these two Presidents are often compared economically. By the (lagged) GDP growth numbers, their relative ranking is not all that clear, since President Bush’s first term was better than the term immediately preceding it, President Clinton’s second term, and Bush’s second term is not yet over. By the lag method, his second term is not even half over. Still, President Clinton averaged 3.2% real growth compared to Bush’s 2.2% so far.

I will grant that economic performance was generally better under Clinton than under Bush. Some of that might be luck and some might be policy.

Luck, good or bad, is certainly part of it. President Clinton was lucky by inheriting an accelerating economy from Bush 41, and possibly by having Republican majorities in both houses of Congress his last six years. Bush 43 was unlucky in (1) inheriting a decelerating economy from Clinton, (2) the 9/11 attacks, (3) Hurricane Katrina and some more recent ones, and (4) a hostile Democratic opposition in Congress, especially the Senate, which could and would filibuster just about anything he favored.

Concerning policy, if you were to look only at the budgets they signed into law, you would think Clinton was a Republican and Bush a Democrat.

Clinton championed the NAFTA free-trade agreement and signed it into law.

* Clinton cut the capital gains tax significantly.
* Clinton signed onto major Welfare Reform.
* Clinton signed Freedom to Farm, a major cut in agriculture subsidies.
* Clinton’s budgets led to the Federal government spending the smallest fraction of the economy since 1966.
* Clinton’s budgets were in surplus in his second term.

President Clinton did two “liberal” things. The first was a relatively minor tax increase on those making more than $200,000 per year, accomplished in his first years in office, before he had an all-Republican Congress feeding him his budgets. The second was reducing Defense spending as a fraction of GDP. The 9/11 attacks occurred at an historically low level of Defense spending, a level not seen since Pearl Harbor. (He also tried to nationalize the 15% of the economy that is health care, but the attempt was unsuccessful.)

By contrast,

Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare/Medicaid, the largest increase of entitlements since LBJ.

* Bush supported increased steel and lumber tariffs.
* Bush ended the Freedom to Farm effort and expanded ethanol subsidies.
* Bush signed on to increases in the minimum wage, the first increase in 10 years.
* Bush, with Ted Kennedy’s help, championed No Child Left Behind, a major expansion of the Federal government in to K-12 education as well as major spending increases.
* Bush’s budgets increased spending from about 18.4% of GDP to 20% and more. That cannot all be blamed on Defense and Iraq, either. Defense spending increased from about 3% of GDP to 4%, a relatively modest increase and a low total level by historical standards even in peacetime.
* Bush has not had a budget surplus since 2001.

President George W. Bush did two real “conservative” things economically: he cut income taxes modestly in his first term and he increased Defense spending.

It is hard to say we need a Democrat in the White House just because the economy was better under Clinton than Bush. On the other hand, it makes sense to say we need Republican policies in place for a better economy based on those same two Presidents. By all means, feel free to repeat Clintons policies of tax cuts, spending cuts and free trade.

If we were to grant that the economy under President Clinton was good (maybe better than Bush’s, but not as good as several other Presidents’, including Reagan’s), we should also attribute that to his policies, which were essentially Republican, and not to his party affiliation. We should also note that his last six years in office were with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

We should also not exaggerate. Clinton averaged 3.2% growth (with the lag). JFK and LBJ averaged 4.3%, Reagan averaged 4.1%, Nixon and Ford averaged 3.7% and Eisenhower averaged 3.6%. On the other hand, President Bush’s first term was better than his father’s, Eisenhower’s and Jimmy Carter’s, as well as LBJ’s and Clinton’s second terms.


Category: Politics

U.S. Jobs Shape Condoms Role In Foreign Aid

Here in this courtly, antebellum town, Alabamas condom production has survived an onslaught of Asian competition, thanks to the patronage of straitlaced congressmen from this Bible Belt state. Behind the scenes, the politicians have ensured that companies in Alabama won federal contracts to make billions of condoms over the years for AIDS - Alabamas condom manufacturers in recent years fell behind on orders; federal aid agency dispensing condoms for AIDS prevention and family planning overseas began buying them from Asia until Republican Sen Jeff Sessions quietly pressed to maintain unqualified priority for American-made condoms; problem goes to heart of intensifying debate among wealthy nations about to what degree foreign aid is about saving jobs at home or lives abroad; Britain, Ireland and Norway have opened contracts on global poverty programs to foreign competition, while US continues to restrict bidding; map; photos (L) - By CELIA W. DUGGER

Concerns Increase Over State Pensions

CONNECTICUT teachers have rallied throughout the state this year for a constitutional amendment ensuring that the state will pay into their pension fund, which officials say is more than $5 billion short. Teachers want to stop lawmakers from repeatedly failing to pay into the plan at required levels. But the teachers are not alone in their - Financial analysts, union leaders, bond rating experts and workers express concern over shortfalls in Connecticut state pension funds; Standard & Poors reports that Connecticut, which has not met its full obligation to pension fund for at least a decade, has covered less than 60 percent of its liabilities to pension fund as of 2004, compared with national average of 83.5 percent, and is $12.1 billion short; photo (M) - By AVI SALZMAN

Daily Kos: House Republican leadership rallies support for Murray ...

The real question is whether Republicans will be able to get it through the House without Democratic help, and whether House Democrats will provide that help if Republicans ask for it. Yesterday, Ryan said he expected conservatives would support the deal, pointing out that its spending levels are lower than the ones contained in the budget that House Republicans passed last year. And this morning, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor ...

U.S. House Republicans voice support for budget deal | Reuters

1 day ago ... U.S. House Republicans voice support for budget deal ... were falling in line
behind a two-year budget deal negotiated behind closed doors, ... Democrats,
who are disappointed by the failure to get a deal on jobless benefits, ...

Debate Over Security for Chemical Plants Focuses on How Strict to Make Rules

After nearly five years of debate over whether the chemical industry should be required to protect plants better against a terrorist attack, a fierce struggle is going on behind the scenes in Congress to deal with what is considered one of the nations most serious vulnerabilities. The clash, which could be resolved as soon as Thursday, is testing - Fierce struggle continues in Congress over whether chemical industry should be required to put more security in place to protect plants from terrorist attack; all parties agree that voluntary measures put into place after Sept 11 attacks are not enough; Homeland Security Department analysis found 272 chemical plants nationwide at which at least 50,000 people and additional 3,400 plants at which more than 1,000 people were at risk; Democrats and Republicans have criticized legislation currently under consideration for being too friendly to industry, and approval is now in question because of objections raised by several senators who hold powerful positions (M) - By ERIC LIPTON

Question to conservatives?

Libertarians and SMALL GOVERNMENT conservatives come out in support for gay marriage.....who saw that coming?
While state Republicans are spearheading the contentious move to put a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage on the ballot next year, not all conservatives are behind them. In recent weeks, a number of conservatives — ranging from small-government and libertarian groups to gay Republicans — have spoken out against codification of marriage laws within the Minnesota Constitution. Some say the amendment is contrary to liberty, while others have taken on social conservative groups such as the Minnesota Family Council.
Minnesotans for Limited Government is a conservative political action committee that favors smaller government and supports Ron Paul for president. It came out against the GOP-backed anti–gay marriage amendment this week.

“It has always been the stance of MNLG that marriage is a sacrament, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the state. We do not approve of any amendment or legislation that further seeks to define Marriage, because it is an infringement on two ideas,” wrote the group’s chair, Jake Barnett. “First, it reinforces the idea that the Government has the right to treat certain individuals differently than others, and second, it further removes Marriage from its original jurisdiction as a sacrament of faith.”

Barnett said that MNLG believes the state should not be involved with religious marriage.

“Under our policy, both heterosexual and homosexual couples could have their unions recognized by the state, but could not call their union a Marriage unless they sought the blessing of a Church. We do not believe any Church should be compelled to marry same-sex couples, but at the same time we respect the rights of Churches to do so if they choose.”

LGBT conservatives have also found the amendment problematic. The Minnesota Log Cabin Republicans are lobbying aggressively against the measure.

“In 2010, Log Cabin Republicans celebrated when the GOP took control of the Minnesota House and Senate. We looked forward to Republican legislators obeying a voter mandate to put a laser focus on the out-of-control spending at the State Capitol. It is deeply disappointing to see members of our party turn away from that mission in favor of a divisive social agenda,” Ken Smoron, Log Cabin’s vice president, said in a statement. “At a time when job creation, the economy, taxes, and the state’s budget are of utmost concern for Minnesota families and businesses, the proposed amendment is anti-liberty, anti-family, and a distraction that Minnesota just can’t afford.”

He added, “If we want to be more than a one-term majority we must focus on the issues that unite us as Republicans and Minnesotans. The days of using the lives of gay and lesbian Americans as a political wedge issue are over.”

The Libertarian Party of Minnesota held an “unusual” special meeting on May 7 to deliberate on the amendment. Party officials there unanimously condemned the marriage amendment.

“The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals,” the party wrote. “We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve.”

It added, “We also oppose any attempt to place a marriage ban before voters, as the trappings of democracy do not legitimize infringements upon personal liberty; a 51 percent majority does not have the right to force its will upon the other 49 percent. We instead support a free society, where 1% can still be free to live their own lives as they choose, even if 99% might disapprove.”

The party also said it supports the repeal of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which bars same-sex couples from marrying.

The party’s vice chair, S.L. Mallek, appeared on the Late Debate, a conservative talk radio show in the northern Twin Cities suburbs.

“It’s about having parents that care about the child, not the gender of these parents,” Mallek said.

The Late Debate is hosted by Jack Tomczak, who has worked for Rep. Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer, and Ben Kruse, a designer and media consultant who’s done work for a number of Republican campaigns.

Kruse agreed with Mallek. “I think if this passes, in 20 years, it will be repealed. I think Republicans will be on the wrong side of history on this one.”

Mallek added, “Government trying to legislate personal relationships… that’s not pro-liberty.”

In a separate episode of the Late Debate, Kruse and the Minnesota Family Council’s Tom Prichard engaged in a heated debate on the conservative principles regarding support or opposition to same-

Answer: TLDR. Libertarians and small government conservatives want the government out of our lives. We are live and let live people. Who would have thought anything else?
Category: Politics

News Summary

INTERNATIONAL A3-11 Western Leaders Pressure Iraq to Unify Government Iraqs dominant Shiite political bloc fractured when its most powerful faction publicly demanded that the Shiite prime minister resign over his inability to form a unified government. The split came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw, the British foreign

Which party holds more responsibility for the economic crash of 2008?

In January 2001, GW Bush got a strong economy and a balanced budget with a strong National GDP.

Republicans had control from 2001 to 2007. They passed every single spending bill they put before President Bush. Bush never vetoed a single spending bill, and they took a budget surplus and immediately ran large deficits.

Angry Americans voted out the Republicans and voted in the Democrats, who took power of the House of Representatives in Jan. 2007. At this time, the economy was already headed into a recession.

The democrats in the house tried to pass legislation that they felt would help the country, but Bush blocked it and vetoed any signature democratic bills. Democrats never passed any policies that they wanted from 2007 - 2009.

In Jan. 2009, Democrats took control of the Senate and the Presidency. But by this time, the economy had completely collapsed and was destroyed. Unemployment was at 7.6% and rising, and GDP was at -7% and falling. We were losing upwards of 900,000 jobs a month when Democrats walked into the door, before any Democratic policies were even written into law.

In the time since Republicans took back control of the house in 2011, Unemployment is still high, but stabilized, and we are adding 120,000 private sector jobs a month under Obama. GDP is back into positive territory at +2%.

Whos fault is it for the financial collapse? and What evidence do you use to think this way?
@ Aubrey: No. the Democrats never had a super majority in 2006 in the senate, they were in the minority. It wasnt until 2009 that they got the majority. And they never had a supermajority of 60+ seats. They only had 59, with the death of Kennedy. You are completely misinformed.

Answer: This goes beyond 'party'...this goes to what institutions have the greatest influence on congress as a whole. Big business has ALWAYS had the last word on government policies. NO person in modern times can get elected to high office unless that person has at least a handshake agreement with big money that the politician in question will do no harm to the interests of big money. To be fair the GOP has always been 'more' of a friend of industry and bankers then the democrats, but the democrats have never shied away from a 'deal' with these people either. However, since the 1980's when American corporations transmogrified into TRANS NATIONAL corporations all of that changed. Basically the current GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News'/Jesus freak party serves ONLY the interests of an ever smaller number of massive trans nationals. The trans nationals, except for 'brand names' are no longer American...they are almost nations themselves and their interests are not the American wage earner. They've moved on. China has over a billion consumers as does India. The US has 300 million consumers....that's why these companies are there. The US is at best a niche market. The trade rules put into place by the trans nationals have put the US at a disadvantage. A chinese worker makes $350.00 a month. No American could live on three times that and maintain a middle class existence. As this plays out the US worker will be poor, mostly jobless and living in a country not a lot different from Mexico. 5% of the population will own 95% of everything worth owning and the 95% will be coolies and peons. Not right away. 90% of Americans are still working though at reduced pay and in the face of rising prices. The population is growing faster than job growth and the social safety net is on its way out. All of the BS talk about who's at fault doesn't ask the real question...how has world economy changed? It's changed because we've passed from American corporations in a world where we had no real competition to a 'world economy' dominated by a trans national corporate power. Once we accept this reality we could find a way to deal with our oncoming poverty. To solve a problem you have to admit there is a problem. My bet is that not one person in carload will understand my explaination....they'll continue to blame the 'leftists'...not the man behind the curtain.
Category: Politics

Whether your Democrat, Independent, Republican, Libertarian or whatever, is this not the most sensible...?

...answer youve seen on here?

From Mammoth Libetarian:
nothing is ever simple but a majority of people need it put in simple answers or they get a headache from thinking.

By Charles Reese - March 31, 2011

He has been a journalist for 49 years.

He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.


This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be.. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a soon-to-be- retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. Its a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People - By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I dont propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I dont have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I dont write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I dont set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I dont control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I dont care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislators responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I cant think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, its because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, its because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan its because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, its because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

Answer: Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing.

The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny.

One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united.

Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party.

"I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."

I'f you don't agree with any of this, you believe exactly what they wan't you to believe.
Category: Politics

Budget Deal | Paul Ryan | Government Shutdown | National Debt

The agreement set to pass the House today is significant but ultimately minuscule. It buys ... Boehner knows his conference, and he knows that he'll get maybe 150 of his Republican colleagues to vote for the budget deal Rep.

House GOP leaders defend new budget deal - The Washington Post

1 day ago ... House Republican leaders defended a new bipartisan budget ... congratulated
Ryan on “the hard work behind trying to get a deal in this ...

House Republicans signal support for budget deal - Nashua ...

WASHINGTON – House Republicans signaled support Wednesday for a budget deal worked out a day. ... “A lot of folks will probably vote for it even though they would rather not support this type of legislation, but we have to get the spending issue completed so that there is some consistency in the future,” Miller said. ... But key Democrats lined up behind Obama, especially after Ryan eased demands on making federal workers contribute more to their pensions. ____.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT - WBKO

10 hours ago ... House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget pact that promises to
bring a temporary halt to budget brinkmanship in Washington ...

HOUSE REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND BUDGET AGREEMENT - WFSB 3 ...

6 hours ago ... House Republicans are rallying behind a modest budget pact that promises to
bring a temporary halt to budget brinkmanship in Washington ...

Key support for budget deal; deficits would rise - The Sun News

A newly minted budget deal to avert future government shutdowns gained important ground Wednesday among House Republicans who are more accustomed to brinkmanship than compromise, even though it would nudge federal deficits higher three years ... "A lot of folks will probably vote for it even though they would rather not support this type of legislation, but we have to get the spending issue completed so that there is some consistency in the future," said Rep.

why should we let them go early just to save a few bucks?what do you think?

By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Don Thompson, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 19, 4:44 pm ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – With California slipping into a financial sinkhole, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to save more than $180 million by cutting short the sentences of thousands of immigrants in the states prisons and turning them over to federal authorities for deportation.

The idea faces certain hurdles — for one thing, commuting some sentences will require court approval — and immigration authorities warn that a mass release of inmates from California and other states could swamp the federal system, which is already at capacity.

But Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Lisa Page said: "Every dollar not spent to house an undocumented immigrant inmate is a dollar that can be spent on health care services and education and other important programs to Californians. These inmates are the federal governments responsibility and California taxpayers shouldnt be paying the bill."

In recent years, other states have struck agreements with federal authorities to deport some inmates before their sentences were up, but those releases were done on a much smaller scale than what California is proposing.

The states plan would involve as many as 19,000 inmates. Those among them who committed sex offenses or violent crimes would not be eligible for early release, Page said Friday.

Nearly 65,000 immigrants — most of them in the U.S. illegally — are serving time in the U.S. for state crimes.

Once immigrants have done their time in state prison, the federal government takes custody of most of them and begins deportation proceedings against them, either because they are illegal immigrants or because they committed crimes while in the U.S. legally.

The government reimburses states for some of the expenses involved in imprisoning immigrants, but states say the money is not nearly enough to cover their costs.

Schwarzenegger is proposing to commute the sentences of thousands of immigrants and transfer them to federal custody over the next 12 months to help close a state budget gap projected at more than $24 billion.

The savings would be a pittance for California — just $182 million if all 19,000 inmates now being held for immigration authorities were released — but Schwarzenegger is looking to save every dime he can. He already has proposed eliminating health care for poor children.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the 33,000 federal detention cells across the country already are full, and immigration judges could be overloaded if the number of deportation cases balloons.

California Corrections spokesman Seth Unger said that to avoid overwhelming the federal system, the state would keep its inmates behind bars until their deportation hearings were over and their appeals exhausted. In that way, they could be deported almost immediately after being turned over to federal authorities.

Since more than 70 percent of Californias immigrant inmates are from Mexico, deporting them would typically involve putting them on a bus.

Officials in other states, including Oregon and Washington, are considering similar moves.

"The fiscal realities that Florida and California and other states are facing will probably put great pressure on trying to reduce the prison population," said Michael Ramage, general counsel for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "Why should the state be saddled with the expense of having to provide a place for these people to be incarcerated while they wait to be deported?"

Most of these released inmates are unlikely to serve additional time once they are home. That is one reason governors of some states are not about to follow Schwarzeneggers example.

"Thats just not happening here in Texas," said Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Officials with the Mexican consulate in Sacramento expressed concern that thousands of ex-convicts could be deported to Mexico.

"In the event that this happens, we will make sure that it takes place in an orderly and safe manner, and that the rights of all deportees, regardless of their migratory status, are observed and respected unconditionally," Consul General Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez said.

Schwarzenegger can single-handedly commute the sentences of 3,200 of them who were convicted of nonviolent, non-sexual offenses. Releasing more serious and repeat offenders early requires approval from the state Supreme Court.

For weeks, the Schwarzenegger administration left open the possibility that violent and sex offenders could be released too. But on Friday, in response to inquiries from The Associated Press, Schwarzeneggers spokeswoman said the governor has ruled that out.

Schwarzeneggers proposal was prompted in part by President Barack Obamas May budget proposal to end the $400 million program that pays states and counties for holding illegal

Answer: It is carved in stone above the supreme count, "equal justice under law."

So much for that founding principle, huh? Americans won't be released early will they. Just more proof, as if any American needed any more, that there is only punishment for being an legal America.
Category: Immigration