Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Appropriations bills is where I hope they take their jackhammers. They might not get Obama or the Senate to sign off on Obamacare repeal but they can slash the budgets of the agencies that are supposed to be hiring all of the government employees/future democrat voters that would supply the intrusive bureaucratic infrastructure.
The president could still veto it, and if they have a standoff, it could force (or threaten) a government shut down. That's a risky play for the R's--they tried it under Newt and it didn't go well for them. If it turns out to be all about defunding health care reform, the R's might want to note that it's rapidly growing in popularity as provisions kick in. The R base may hate it, but the majority of Americans don't. I don't know that I'd want to be in the position of taking away insurance coverage for people with cancer who couldn't get it before because of preexisting conditions, etc....it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
If the military cuts are not there they are just blowing hot air. The military is easily 40 percent of our budget (with the 'hidden' subbudgets in the Dep of Energey, etc...)
Appropriations bills is where I hope they take their jackhammers. They might not get Obama or the Senate to sign off on Obamacare repeal but they can slash the budgets of the agencies that are supposed to be hiring all of the government employees/future democrat voters that would supply the intrusive bureaucratic infrastructure.
Yes, this is what they need to do.
The EPA, FCC, HHS should have drastic cuts and budgetary "restraints" regarding funding.
Almost $1 Billion in obamacare administrative cost.
Quite an extensive list - a very good start indeed.
Yeah, an extensive list that leaves out defense completely and eliminates energy conservation, alternative energy, etc.
It's a half hearted start that doesn't touch Republican sacred cows.
Turning back the clock to 2006? Please, we were spending way more than we should have back then. I suppose leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is out of the question then? Please.
The president could still veto it, and if they have a standoff, it could force (or threaten) a government shut down. That's a risky play for the R's--they tried it under Newt and it didn't go well for them. If it turns out to be all about defunding health care reform, the R's might want to note that it's rapidly growing in popularity as provisions kick in. The R base may hate it, but the majority of Americans don't. I don't know that I'd want to be in the position of taking away insurance coverage for people with cancer who couldn't get it before because of preexisting conditions, etc....it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It will be different this time. If obama refuses to sign the bills (let's see him try with a GOP mandate from the election to reduce spending), the GOP can offer CR ONLY, just enough funding to keep essentials services funded.
Yeah, an extensive list that leaves out defense completely and eliminates energy conservation, alternative energy, etc.
It's a half hearted start that doesn't touch Republican sacred cows.
Turning back the clock to 2006? Please, we were spending way more than we should have back then. I suppose leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is out of the question then? Please.
More, much more needs to be done.
Back in 2006, our outlays pretty much MATCHED the revenues taken in. For the last 4 years, the democrats have increased outlays by massive amounts, while revenue stayed the same or decreased slightly.
There's an almost identical thread: GOP - Will propose $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years - so I'll just post here what I put there
“Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget"
The whole bills seems to be designed to sabotage the public transportation projects. When will they understand that dependency on foreign oil is not necessarily a good thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
