Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama (1 Viewer)

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,819
Reaction score
3,782
Offline
Republicans in the Senate are drafting a bill that lets the President decide where the cuts take place. Basically, the plan delays the cuts, and gives the President until March 8 to come up with a budget that achieves the same level of cuts. Then, it votes on whether or not to accept it - the President can veto this vote. They would need 60 votes to override a veto by the president.

As proposed, lawmakers would retain the power to overturn the president’s spending plan by March 22, but only under a resolution of disapproval that would demand two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate to prevail over an Obama veto.
The proposal would require — like the sequester — that no more than $42.6 billion of the cuts come at the expense of defense programs.

Read more: Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama - Manu Raju and David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Very interesting. What do you think?
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,771
Reaction score
10,788
Online
Republicans in the Senate are drafting a bill that lets the President decide where the cuts take place. Basically, the plan delays the cuts, and gives the President until March 8 to come up with a budget that achieves the same level of cuts. Then, it votes on whether or not to accept it - the President can veto this vote. They would need 60 votes to override a veto by the president.




Read more: Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama - Manu Raju and David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Very interesting. What do you think?
It's a political move (of course). Basically they're trying to get credit for cutting the budget while shifting the blame to Obama for cutting specific programs (since every program will have backers).
 

Cosmic201

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
4,553
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
I say go for it.

I'm willing to bet it'll be just like when Mitch Mcconnell put out a bill that would give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats ended up supporting it and Mitch filibustered his own bill.

This is just more political theater with Republicans trying to show they're willing to play ball, but snatching the ball away if Democrats actually agree.
 

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
7,998
Age
50
Location
Laplace, LA
Online
So constitutionally speaking, can the senate enact a bill that gives away the powers it is granted from the constitution? Wouldn't that bill be unconstitutional?
 
OP
jcollins9

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,819
Reaction score
3,782
Offline
I say go for it.

I'm willing to bet it'll be just like when Mitch Mcconnell put out a bill that would give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats ended up supporting it and Mitch filibustered his own bill.

This is just more political theater with Republicans trying to show they're willing to play ball, but snatching the ball away if Democrats actually agree.
I don't know if they'll actually do it, but it's interesting. I think it's more like them saying, "You proposed this, so here, go ahead and do something."
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,296
Reaction score
28,319
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
Republicans in the Senate are drafting a bill that lets the President decide where the cuts take place. Basically, the plan delays the cuts, and gives the President until March 8 to come up with a budget that achieves the same level of cuts. Then, it votes on whether or not to accept it - the President can veto this vote. They would need 60 votes to override a veto by the president.




Read more: Senate GOP ponders ceding power to President Obama - Manu Raju and David Rogers - POLITICO.com

Very interesting. What do you think?
I think the GOP members of the house and Senate are sniveling, cowering little wimps who ought to be thrashed about the face and head until they grow a set.

Spending bills originate with them. Tossing the responsibility of the cuts to Obama is a cop out. It's also a political joke so they can try and pin the cuts on him.

Everyone knows we need to cut. The Rs trying to hang the cuts on Obama is the silliest political nonsense I may ever have heard since force vaginal probes.

If they cede to the president the power to control the cuts they will have allowed him to control their strategy. They are the ones running on cut, cut cut. If he enacts it and it's good policy, where are they? What will they have done to their own strongest policy which is the need for real spending cuts?

Let's say Obama cuts military to the max? Everyone knows we're coming off two wars and the military needs to be cut. Are they going to say "sissy obama killed security?"

Let's say he kills some other stupid waste. He's going to get the credit and not them?

It's as if they don't have the nerve to do their own bidding and it's their only strong position. We need to cut spending. Why give the president the power to tailor those cuts to suit his own agenda and to better serve the country?

All I see from this is bad strategy, but at least it's better than the nonsense that goes otherwise. I guess in that regard I feel better about it, but I can't for the life of me figure why the GOP would allow Obama to control the knife.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,296
Reaction score
28,319
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
I don't know if they'll actually do it, but it's interesting. I think it's more like them saying, "You proposed this, so here, go ahead and do something."
Exactly only worse.

They're saying "We need to cut spending."

And, then giving Obama the credit for the cuts.

"Obama cut spending" is not going to play to their base to the middle or to anyone except morons who they could convince Obama's selection of the cuts would be somehow inferior to the meat axe approach.

The number of Americans dumb enough to buy that line of argument I presume is offensively high, but it's not anywhere near large enough to win them any elections.

Oh, and god forbid Obama come out and cut spending on the medicare drug spending by forcing negotiations or discounts.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
Its beyond ridiculous that we have this much theater over what amounts to 1% of u.s. spending.
 
OP
jcollins9

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,819
Reaction score
3,782
Offline
I think the GOP members of the house and Senate are sniveling, cowering little wimps who ought to be thrashed about the face and head until they grow a set.

Spending bills originate with them. Tossing the responsibility of the cuts to Obama is a cop out. It's also a political joke so they can try and pin the cuts on him.

Everyone knows we need to cut. The Rs trying to hang the cuts on Obama is the silliest political nonsense I may ever have heard since force vaginal probes.

If they cede to the president the power to control the cuts they will have allowed him to control their strategy. They are the ones running on cut, cut cut. If he enacts it and it's good policy, where are they? What will they have done to their own strongest policy which is the need for real spending cuts?

Let's say Obama cuts military to the max? Everyone knows we're coming off two wars and the military needs to be cut. Are they going to say "sissy obama killed security?"

Let's say he kills some other stupid waste. He's going to get the credit and not them?

It's as if they don't have the nerve to do their own bidding and it's their only strong position. We need to cut spending. Why give the president the power to tailor those cuts to suit his own agenda and to better serve the country?

All I see from this is bad strategy, but at least it's better than the nonsense that goes otherwise. I guess in that regard I feel better about it, but I can't for the life of me figure why the GOP would allow Obama to control the knife.
Exactly only worse.

They're saying "We need to cut spending."

And, then giving Obama the credit for the cuts.

"Obama cut spending" is not going to play to their base to the middle or to anyone except morons who they could convince Obama's selection of the cuts would be somehow inferior to the meat axe approach.

The number of Americans dumb enough to buy that line of argument I presume is offensively high, but it's not anywhere near large enough to win them any elections.

Oh, and god forbid Obama come out and cut spending on the medicare drug spending by forcing negotiations or discounts.
I think you're dead wrong. Obama's saying that they have no discretion in the cuts. This bill gives them a little flexibility, but maintains the levels of cuts. We're probably using the wrong word here, also. We're not cutting anything. We'll still be spending more than we ever have spent before, just a little less than we would have.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
24,771
Reaction score
10,788
Online
Its beyond ridiculous that we have this much theater over what amounts to 1% of u.s. spending.
I also agree with this.. and it does highlight the spending problem we have. This will do almost nothing to lower the deficit and yet look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 

brandon8283

Probably a drive-by
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
8,332
Age
37
Offline
Totally a blame shift. Take credit for the cuts, blame Obama for actually doing the cutting.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
33,076
Reaction score
31,912
Location
Covington
Online
I think the GOP members of the house and Senate are sniveling, cowering little wimps who ought to be thrashed about the face and head until they grow a set.

Spending bills originate with them. Tossing the responsibility of the cuts to Obama is a cop out. It's also a political joke so they can try and pin the cuts on him.

Everyone knows we need to cut. The Rs trying to hang the cuts on Obama is the silliest political nonsense I may ever have heard since force vaginal probes.

If they cede to the president the power to control the cuts they will have allowed him to control their strategy. They are the ones running on cut, cut cut. If he enacts it and it's good policy, where are they? What will they have done to their own strongest policy which is the need for real spending cuts?

Let's say Obama cuts military to the max? Everyone knows we're coming off two wars and the military needs to be cut. Are they going to say "sissy obama killed security?"

Let's say he kills some other stupid waste. He's going to get the credit and not them?

It's as if they don't have the nerve to do their own bidding and it's their only strong position. We need to cut spending. Why give the president the power to tailor those cuts to suit his own agenda and to better serve the country?

All I see from this is bad strategy, but at least it's better than the nonsense that goes otherwise. I guess in that regard I feel better about it, but I can't for the life of me figure why the GOP would allow Obama to control the knife.
So if Congress delegates this authority over to President, why do we need a "Congress"?

What is going on in Washington?!?!?! The Congressional members have just about all but forgotten who they are there for. This is bordering on a level of absurdity that i cant even wrap my stoopid brain around.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,296
Reaction score
28,319
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
I think you're dead wrong. Obama's saying that they have no discretion in the cuts. This bill gives them a little flexibility, but maintains the levels of cuts. We're probably using the wrong word here, also. We're not cutting anything. We'll still be spending more than we ever have spent before, just a little less than we would have.
We are spending less than the original amount budgeted for the various affected agencies. These are cuts. They are not a reduction in the rate of increase.

They are real time cuts. Right now. Friday. There are real amounts of money that were budgeted to be spent that now will not be. There are real people on this forum who will be furloughed. There are thousands of folks at Stennis in MS that work for DOD and the Navy and NOAA that are going to be cut up to 20%. Right now.

Still, my point wasn't that we don't need cuts. We do. The Republicans have been championing the need for cuts since Obama took office and despite the fact that the whole lot of them did nothing, but spend unlimited money during the previous administration, the fact is that we need cuts. Well, rather, we need a reduction in the rate of increase in the overall federal budget.

We need to spend less as a portion of GDP than we do today.

Everyone knows it.

We can do it by two methods.

1. We can cut real spending.
2. We can grow the economy.

Reality is we need to do both.

Still, Republicans have convinced themselves and the rest of us that they're number 1 goal is to cut spending. Fine. It's the one thing I like about your party.

Cut the spending.

Whoever does it is going to get credit, but they're so sissified and tied up in their stupid politics that they're going to pass the buck for the cuts to Obama.

What will happen? He'll tailor the cuts to be less impactful. He will get credit for saving us money. He'll get credit for lessening the suffering from the cuts. He'll be able to offset some of the burden by engineering the across the board stupidity a little.

And, he'll get credit.

Why Republicans support giving him the keys to the car is beyond me. IF I were them, I'd put out a list of real live meaningful cuts that aren't red meat education, irs, dep, epa nonsense that can't meaningfully accomplish anything and take responsibility.

Why hasn't one of these free market Rand Paulites suggested we revisit the prescription drug giveaway? They moan about costs, but refused to allow negotiation with drug companies.

Every Democrat would support it and it would provide meaningful savings for medicare and not hurt anyone. Why? There are hundreds and thousands of good ways to cut spending. Propose some.
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,296
Reaction score
28,319
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
So if Congress delegates this authority over to President, why do we need a "Congress"?

What is going on in Washington?!?!?! The Congressional members have just about all but forgotten who they are there for. This is bordering on a level of absurdity that i cant even wrap my stoopid brain around.
Karl Rove and the easter bunny got drunk and took a bunch of acid and concocted some strategy none of the rest of us can comprehend.

It's all I got.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,515
Reaction score
20,259
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
Its beyond ridiculous that we have this much theater over what amounts to 1% of u.s. spending.
Theater indeed. The political posturing of late has been downright sickening. No wonder Congress has near zero approval ratings. The only reason it's not zero is because people tend to support their own state Congressman. In the end, the sequester really amounts to a rather small part of the budget.

Meh.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,515
Reaction score
20,259
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
We are spending less than the original amount budgeted for the various affected agencies. These are cuts. They are not a reduction in the rate of increase.

They are real time cuts. Right now. Friday. There are real amounts of money that were budgeted to be spent that now will not be. There are real people on this forum who will be furloughed. There are thousands of folks at Stennis in MS that work for DOD and the Navy and NOAA that are going to be cut up to 20%. Right now.
Source? My understanding was spending levels in 2013 will still be higher than in 2012 and that the sequester was a reduction in increase. There seems to be debate as to the real affect of the sequester. I'm not sure what would be a good unbiased source for explaining what the sequester would actually do.

Edit: FYI, I just saw your explanation in the sequester thread and I get what you're saying now. The 2013 fiscal year started in October so the sequester is a reduction of monies already budgeted this year. It makes sense if they don't have what they expected, they will have to trim the spending they expected. I really don't get it though. If you really want to make a meaningful impact, cut spending 5%, or even 3% across the board and do it well in advance of the fiscal year so departments don't have to take the meat cleaver approach and allow them to trim the fat in each of their respective departments. I just don't get it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom