HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Senate Democrats say they...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:23 PM

Senate Democrats say they will oblige GOP calls to pass budget, warn it will include taxes

Source: Washington Post

Republicans for years have complained bitterly that Senate Democrats last produced a comprehensive budget in 2009 and say that, if Obama and fellow Democrats want to borrow more money, they’ll have to outline a spending plan.

Senate Democrats announced Sunday that they will oblige and produce a budget — but warned it will include higher taxes that Republicans oppose.

“We’re going to do a budget this year,” Schumer said hours before Obama officially began his second term. “And it’s going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues better get used to that fact.”

The tough talk by Schumer, the number-three Democrat in the Senate, follows House Republicans’ announcement last week that they would approve a short-term increase in the nation’s borrowing limit without linking that to demands for spending cuts. Democrats called it a step in the right direction but also said the extension should be longer than the three months the GOP is offering.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-say-they-will-oblige-gop-calls-to-pass-budget-warn-it-will-include-taxes/2013/01/21/23e1d8a8-63af-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

17 replies, 2339 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate Democrats say they will oblige GOP calls to pass budget, warn it will include taxes (Original post)
Redfairen Jan 2013 OP
leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #1
samsingh Jan 2013 #2
24601 Jan 2013 #3
PSPS Jan 2013 #4
24601 Jan 2013 #11
former9thward Jan 2013 #8
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #5
forestpath Jan 2013 #6
peacebird Jan 2013 #7
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #9
peacebird Jan 2013 #10
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #12
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #14
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #15
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #16
Myrina Jan 2013 #17
Pterodactyl Jan 2013 #13

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:36 PM

1. they'll vote it down like the last one and continue to scream about how the dems dont have a budget

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:14 PM

2. we should not play nice with repugs

they only understand having the shit kicked out of them

being nice or cooperative only invites their ridicule

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:46 PM

3. How will this play out since the Constitution requires revenue bills to originate in the House of

Representatives?

Article I, Section 7, (Clause 1): "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Therefore, a budget bill originating in the Senate cannot include taxes.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:31 PM

4. I've wondered that too

I suppose what happens is that the Senate will submit its idea of a budget to the House (presumably meaning it is something the Senate would pass,) and the house writes the actual bill using that as a guideline.

Of course, "since 2009," all this really means is that adults send the budget to the romper room where the children write silly faces on it with their crayons, likely including the requisite racial cartoons and epithets, and send it back. That's what passes for governing in the era of the 'baggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:04 PM

11. So if the House doesn't pass it's own budget and only sends the Senate bill to conference, they

all would be working from a bill that did not originate in the House, and any tax provisions would be prohibited by the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:38 PM

8. The House has passed their version of the budget.

The Senate can now pass their version and assuming it is different than the House's it would go to conference committee to agree on a merger. After that the House and Senate can vote the merger up or down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:35 PM

5. Obama's "commitment" to senior?????

Asked by ABC’s George Stephanopolous whether Obama “will only sign a budget deal if it includes new revenues,” Plouffe agreed.

“Yes, it’s got to be balanced,” said Plouffe, who expects to leave his first-floor West Wing office soon. “We need spending cuts, entitlement reform and revenue. We have to have that.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-say-they-will-oblige-gop-calls-to-pass-budget-warn-it-will-include-taxes/2013/01/21/23e1d8a8-63af-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

So much for Obama's pretty words about Social Security and Medicare and disabled children in the Inauguration speech.

Plouffe is telling us what Obama really meant.

And it will be disastrous for many, many middle class American families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:11 PM

6. +1 "Balanced" my ass.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:25 PM

7. Please, can't we wait to see what they propose before declaring it to be a crime against humanity?

I agree, the dems and Obama need spine-implants. But can't we enjoy todays speeches and the inauguration and THEN go back to kvetching? Please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:41 PM

9. Didnt you get the memo? We are supposed to fire and brimstone anyone who even brings up

"entitlement reform" whether or not there are details because all reform is evillllllllllllllll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:47 PM

10. Oh, sorry... Must've missed that one...

Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:12 PM

12. I didn't give that interview. Plouffe did.

I assume he speaks for President Obama. There is a big difference between mouthing glittering generalities about keeping commitments to seniors and what Plouffe suggests that Democrats will propose.

Euphoria is fun for some. But then so is getting drunk -- if you like to drink.

The morning after -- not so great.

I always maintain my skepticism. And I am one who volunteered many, many hours for the Obama campaign. He's my president too, and I've got the same right to criticize him as others do to worship him.

There are many things that I like about Obama, and many of his policies that I support. But I do not want to see my generation and those younger than us cheated on Social Security and Medicare just because Wall Street is trying to set up yet another swindle for suckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:34 PM

14. Sure, when he actually does something wrong by all means but

also keep in mind he is the President of the United States which means he is supposed to work for all of us and us being everyone in the country not just everyone who is a democrat.
As for the talk of entitlement reform for now its just talk and you know what? That is a good thing.
And no I dont mean it would be a good thing if cut medicare or social security but rather they need to keep open lines of dialogue to discuss ways to make the varies programs run better so that they can remain within their budgets.
For example do we need the VA? Couldnt they roll it into social security and medicare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:26 AM

15. Did you read the article discussing Plouffe's interview?

Obama is planning on including "entitlement reform" in his proposal for a balanced budget.

The best idea would be to roll the VA and Medicare into a universal single-payer system, but Republicans in Congress would never vote for it.

The reason that we seniors need our own close-to-free (and Medicare does not cover many health care needs of seniors -- like hearing aids, which are very expensive, dental care, and other things plus we pay co-pays that add up because of the frequency of our visits to the doctor, many of which are not our idea), health care coverage is that we would have to be in the top 1% to be able to avoid the health care we need -- even the basic health care we need.

Those of us who live long enough to make it to 65 and older are like cars that functioned beautifully with just an oil change or a wheel balancing here and there when we were just a few years old but now need new transmissions and brake systems and even in certain cases a new engine.

We are older. Statistically, on the average, our likelihood of having a very expensive health crisis is far greater than it was when we were in our teens or twenties. That's why wise leaders invented Medicare.

We are not good risks. Insurance companies would refuse to take most of us on. We have too many pre-existing conditions, and the insurance companies calculate risks very carefully. I know this because I bought my own insurance in my early 60s. I was relatively healthy, but, in California, where the insurance laws pretty much mean you will get some sort of insurance, however expensive, I was considered high risk due to tiny little "pre-existing conditions" that you would laugh at. I was shocked.

The VA exists because, like the elderly, veterans, especially those who serve in battle, have a high incidence of difficult medical problems, often due to their military experience. If you did not pay for Medicare taxes out of your paycheck, the portion of that check you would have to pay for insurance for yourself and your family would be much higher. The money to cover your elderly neighbor's kidney dialysis -- the care that keeps him alive for his grandchildren -- would be paid for in part out of your monthly insurance premium. Fewer Americans would buy health insurance. And in the many, expensive health crises young Americans would face, they would call on the government to help them. So, to protect the private health insurance system from inevitable bankruptcy, we have Medicare. The money for the health care of the elderly has to come from somewhere. You may not like paying for Medicare, but if your mother was dying from a curable condition simply because you couldn't afford to pay for her treatments, you would scream for government assistance. Or at least most young Americans would. Hence, Medicare.

As for Social Security -- it is a) a way to get older people out of the work force so that younger, generally stronger and more desired workers, can get jobs, and b) a cooperative way that permits each working person to provide for him- or herself in the senior years.

Social Security benefits are earned by paying into the system during your working life. They are not a gift. They are not charity. I got my card when I was 14 as did others my age. When I worked, I paid into the system -- always. People who do not pay into the system are not eligible for Social Security benefits. The cap on Social Security taxes needs to be raised. There would be no threat of a lack of funds for Social Security if we simply did that.

Our government solemnly promised us all of our working lives that if we paid into the system it would manage the Social Security Trust so that the money for us would be there when we retired. Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses all made this vow to us -- with no exceptions until George W. Bush under the influence of Pete Peterson and a greedy crew on a soon-to-be-bankrupt Wall Street.

In fact, Reagan revamped the Social Security system to require us to pay in a higher percentage of our income than before assuring us and the baby boomers that if we just paid more, we would be able to count on having the Social Security benefits we would need when we reached retirement age.

All the while, we and our younger baby boomer brothers and sisters maintained our parents in style. We worked and paid the money in. They not only received good Social Security benefits but, as union-paid workers, also received in many cases, good employer pensions. I would bet that not a one of us regrets having taken good care of our parents.

Clinton and Gore talked about putting Social Security in a lock box, but it didn't happen.

And then came George W. Bush and Pete Peterson with his anti-Social Security rants. Peterson has put his money where his mouth is and become the anti-Social Security spokesperson. George W. Bush smashed the idea of a lock box and started giving the money away -- to defense contractors, to avenge his father, to fulfill his I'm-a-hero-because-I-won-in-Iraq fantasies, to curry favor with his dad's friends in the oil business and to demonstrate his generosity to other 1%ers in the upper tax brackets. He sold out seniors.

Now comes Obama. Appoints Timothy Geithner be the Treasury Dept. head. Geithner - a Pete Peterson protege who owed his appointment to the N.Y. Fed to a committee headed by Pete Peterson. The rest is history -- or about to be.

It's a typical Obama twist and turn. On the same weekend that he affirms in his Inauguration Speech that he supports Social Security and Medicare -- the twist to the left -- his spokesman, Plouffe, announces to those alert enough to watch the talk shows -- the turn to the right -- that he plans "entitlement reform."

And so, where are we? We have two departments, Defense and Homeland Security, that cannot be audited by the GAO because they cannot keep good records, and we have Social Security, that can be audited (apparently, by elimination) but for which Congress refuses to pay the bills.

Homeland Security and Defense need to fess up to what they did and do with the money they claim they can't account for, and seniors need to be paid what they were assured would be there and have been paying their parents. (The Reagan administration assured us that if we only paid in higher taxes, the money would be saved for us. That was a promise regardless of what the Supreme Court says. That was a promise for which we performed actions. It's as close to a contractual obligation as you get with our government. How does that differ from a defense contract? Reagan said: Pay in more and you will be cared for as you are now caring for your parents. We paid in. It was a deal.)

And while I am at it, may I remind you of the pallets of cash that were shipped to Iraq and, admittedly, LOST.

May I remind you that the Secretary of Treasury is specifically, by statute, charged with safeguarding Social Security's Trust Fund -- and Obama placed Geithner, who is very suspect with regard to his commitment to Social Security, in charge of the Treasury.

There is a serious problem here.

The worst of it is that Obama, who now plans to cut Social Security benefits gave a "vacation" to those now paying into the system which reduced the amount of money flowing into the Social Security Trust Fund until the most recent deal between the White House and Congress. This, of all of Obama's actions, most proves his lack of commitment to Social Security and Medicare. Obama and the current Congress simply do not value seniors to the extent that Americans of generations since Roosevelt have. This is a very sad fact that reflects the deterioration of social and moral values in our nation.

This comes at a time in which it is tougher than ever since the 1930s for people in their 50s to get and keep jobs. This comes following a national financial crisis brought on by the greed and folly of Wall Street, the very wealthy and the mortgage industry which has devastated American families. This failure to fulfill the commitment to seniors comes at a time when middle-class young people face bigger student loan burdens and a tougher job market than in a long time. And the deficits in Social Security and Medicare benefit payments will eventually fall hardest upon the children of the elderly.

A nation that double-crosses its seniors, its grandparents, is in deeper trouble than just a financial crisis. It is in a moral crisis. If the constant, unending wars, the impersonal, materialistic killing-by-drones, the excessive secrecy that hides the shame and lack of honor of our military brass and the gun mania don't prove that, cutting the financial foundation out from under grandma and grandpa certainly does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:32 AM

16. No. Because a lot of Americans who worked all their lives for low wages now face

very insecure and more difficult senior years because of the threats of the Obama administration to increase Medicare costs and lower Social Security payments.

It's a double whammy that many seniors will not survive.

Those are your grandparents or parents. You will end up footing the bill.

The defense contractors and extremely wealthy will end up pocketing the money that should go to you and your parents and grandparents.

That is not a trifle. That is yet another indication of the deep moral dissolution that extreme right-wing politics have foisted upon a basically good people.

This nation was founded on the idea that, even when difficult, we would try to keep our commitments to each other.

How strange that Republicans are loathe to default on the Chinese, but quick to default on their own grandparents. Could it be that the same 1% that supports the Republicans are heavily invested in China, not so much in the US??? It's a thought worth pondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:37 PM

17. +100

Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:14 PM

13. That's awesome! It's about time the senate passed a budget!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread