Boehner might not have the votes to pass spending bill in the House

[JEDI]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/spending-bill-brink/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

woah.. thought this was a done deal since the spending bill was endorsed by both the Repubs and Dems.

yeah, some repubs are opposed by the bill but the politicos have estimated that enuf dems will votes yes to pass.

guess there are more repubs than Boehner thought that aren't voting for it.

the House went into recess around 2 p.m. That signals House leaders are scrambling to get votes for the package.

govt shutdown in 6hrs?!

 

[TheSlamma]

meh, this again? least CNN and Faux will have something else to talk about than protests for a bit.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/spending-bill-brink/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

woah.. thought this was a done deal since the spending bill was endorsed by both the Repubs and Dems.

yeah, some repubs are opposed by the bill but the politicos have estimated that enuf dems will votes yes to pass.

guess there are more repubs than Boehner thought that aren't voting for it.


govt shutdown in 6hrs?!

Good. Its a stupid bill. It deserves to be shot down and reworked properly.
Just another case of the RINO's acting like democrats.

And yes, I wouldn't mind a partial or full shutdown of the government until they can actually put out an intelligent spending bill that conforms to what the Conservatives have been campaigning on the last six years. Otherwise it is nothing more than hypocritical hogwash.

But then, that doesn't surprise me, considering the current Republican leadership exhibits little backbone to do what they believe is right, rather than compromising with those of whom they have just soundly beaten in the last election.
No, that would be too easy...

 

[fskimospy]

Good. Its a stupid bill. It deserves to be shot down and reworked properly.
Just another case of the RINO's acting like democrats.

And yes, I wouldn't mind a partial or full shutdown of the government until they can actually put out an intelligent spending bill that conforms to what the Conservatives have been campaigning on the last six years. Otherwise it is nothing more than hypocritical hogwash.

But then, that doesn't surprise me, considering the current Republican leadership exhibits little backbone to do what they believe is right, rather than compromising with those of whom they have just soundly beaten in the last election.
No, that would be too easy...

Do they control the presidency and I just missed it?

No?

Sounds like they won't be passing any spending bills that conform to what they have been campaigning on for the last 6 years then. At least not any that will become law. If you want to shut the government down some more be my guest.

If you didn't want to have to compromise you probably should have won one of the last two presidential elections. Since you failed to do so, and the odds are against you for the next one too, this sounds like compromise is something you will have to come to grips with.

 

[First]

Repubs.

lol

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Do they control the presidency and I just missed it?

Nope. But they do control both houses of Congress. Of course, I do predict Obama would veto any spending bill that does not fund his amnesty of those who have come to this country quite illegally.
But I do not recall there being a Presidential election this year. And the dynamics of what the voters care about have drastically changed from 2012.

With the sound thumping that the Democrats incurred during this years election, it is generally obvious that the electorate are tired of 1,700 page bills that no one can read in time, as well as the lack of adhering to the campaign promises about giving the voters ample time to read bills and respond to them before voting. The list goes on.

The voters want conviction from their elected officials, not lip service.

Sounds like they won't be passing any spending bills that conform to what they have been campaigning on for the last 6 years then. At least not any that will become law. If you want to shut the government down some more be my guest.

I am perfectly fine with that, quite frankly. Not that I wish it. But it is still better than the alternative, should the bill pass.
A government in partial shutdown mode is better than a dysfunctional government that continues off the cliff.

If you didn't want to have to compromise you probably should have won one of the last two presidential elections. Since you failed to do so, and the odds are against you for the next one too, this sounds like compromise is something you will have to come to grips with.

And how exactly are the odds against the conservatives on the next one? The potential liberal candidates are not exactly impressing people. And after six years of Obama, people are quickly losing patience with the Democrats. And rightfully so.

No, the part that is depressing is that the chances of actually electing a conservative president who will remain true to his/her conservative credentials the way progressives do is slim to none.

But thats another subject entirely. For right now, I would rather have a shutdown government rather than a functioning one that only makes its messes worse than before.

 

[1prophet]

The other policy provisions added to the spending bill - one increasing the limit rich donors can give to national party committees, and one rolling back a key financial reform barring banks from using taxpayer-insured money for derivatives trades - have made it even more unpalatable.


"At this point I don't see many Democratic votes at all for a bill that is so antithetical to the middle class," Rep. Steve Israel, D-New York, told CNN before heading into a meeting on the measure on Thursday morning.
Other Democrats are taking a more pragmatic approach, stressing they are weighing the good with the bad.


"This may be a hold your nose vote," Rep. Gerry Connolly told reporters, suggesting he could ultimately back the measure and any deal next year would only get worse for the programs he cares about. Connolly's suburban Virginia district is home to tens of thousands of federal workers who got a small pay raise as part of the deal.

Instead of holding their nose, how about democrats grow a spine and do the right thing,


or stop being hypocrites, pretending they are for the middle class and admit they love the pleasures of the corporate whorehouse just as much as any republican.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Repubs.

lol

I quite agree.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, this spending bill needs to be killed.
Even Democrats like Liz Warren are voting against it, due to neutering the contribution limits. On this, I can agree with the Democrats. Both sides have valid reasons to hate this bill. All the more reason not to pass it.

And yet Democrat and Republican leaders, as well as Obama, are trying to schmooze this nonsense through, even though they have all campaigned against the relevant sections of it.

Lip service. Nothing more.

 

[K1052]

The voters want conviction from their elected officials, not lip service.

Actually we want good governance.

 

[michal1980]

good. terrible bill is terrible.

 

[trenchfoot]

Regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, this spending bill needs to be killed.
Even Democrats like Liz Warren are voting against it, due to neutering the contribution limits. On this, I can agree with the Democrats. Both sides have valid reasons to hate this bill. All the more reason not to pass it.

And yet Democrat and Republican leaders, as well as Obama, are trying to schmooze this nonsense through, even though they have all campaigned against the relevant sections of it.

Lip service. Nothing more.

It seems to me the more money an individual can give to a politician the more influence that individual has over said politician. This can only be an advantage that the rich and powerful can take advantage of. A consequence of that advantage for the rich is it conversely takes away power and influence from the middle class and the poor.

As I see it, the Dems in Congress of whom have been branding themselves as champions of the middle class, the minorities and the poor for decades are stabbing themselves in the back by allowing the very rich to give to the Repubs an even better chance at winning elections via the ability to acquire much more generous campaign donations than the Dems. Unless of course, the Dems somehow think it will benefit them on equal terms with the Repubs.

Traditionally, that hasn't been the case. If it is such, then it doesn't bode well that the Dems in Congress may feel that the only way to win elections is to sell their souls to the elite and to hell with the folks who voted them into office.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Actually we want good governance.

You mistakenly assume that the two are mutually exclusive. How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[ivwshane]

Considering that this spending bill is being held up to what amounts to goodies, I wonder if the ban on earmarks are what's helping cause gridlock? I hate wasteful spending just as much as anyone but earmarks did serve a purpose.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/06/168745513/could-reviving-earmarks-get-congress-moving-again

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

It seems to me the more money an individual can give to a politician the more influence that individual has over said politician. This can only be an advantage that the rich and powerful can take advantage of. A consequence of that advantage for the rich is it conversely takes away power and influence from the middle class and the poor.

As I see it, the Dems in Congress of whom have been branding themselves as champions of the middle class, the minorities and the poor for decades are stabbing themselves in the back by allowing the very rich to give to the Repubs an even better chance at winning elections via the ability to acquire much more generous campaign donations than the Dems. Unless of course, the Dems somehow think it will benefit them on equal terms with the Repubs.

Where do you get the idea that big money is strictly the domain of the Republicans?
Big money from the upper classes was a major factor in both of Obama's elections. If memory serves, he got a larger amount of funds from the upper class than McCain and Romney. The Democratic Reps and Senators are no different than the Republicans in this case.

Traditionally, that hasn't been the case. If it is such, then it doesn't bode well that the Dems in Congress may feel that the only way to win elections is to sell their souls to the elite and to hell with the folks who voted them into office.

I'm afraid it has been this way for a long time, with precious few exceptions on both sides of the aisle.

"Traditionally"? This has been the lie for some time. I'm sorry, but it has been this way for some time. This is what happens when a politician lacks the discipline to stick with his convictions, even over easy money from lobbyists.

Unlimited contributions is a primary factor in political corruption in both parties. Don't delude yourself into thinking that it is only the Republicans.
And don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Considering that this spending bill is being held up to what amounts to goodies, I wonder if the ban on earmarks are what's helping cause gridlock? I hate wasteful spending just as much as anyone but earmarks did serve a purpose.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/06/168745513/could-reviving-earmarks-get-congress-moving-again

Whether or not the lack of earmarks are causing the gridlock, we are still better off without them.

In many cases, gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing. If a bill is so badly written that neither side can agree, then why make it worse by including earmarks that have nothing to do with the bill at hand?

What is so great about essentially having your elected official both bribed and paid for like a cheap hooker?

 

[JEDI]

Houses narrowly passes $1.1T spending bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/congress-spending-bill.html

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Houses narrowly passes $1.1T spending bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/congress-spending-bill.html

Doesn't surprise me.

Anyone have figures on how this spending bill compares to last years (amounts)?

 

[Zorkorist]

Thanks for the news Jedi. Do you know that the nytimes is a paywall site? I can't see their content without logging in (maybe they just want my cookies), etc.

Just FYI.

Thank you.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

Good. Its a stupid bill. It deserves to be shot down and reworked properly.
Just another case of the RINO's acting like democrats.

And yes, I wouldn't mind a partial or full shutdown of the government until they can actually put out an intelligent spending bill that conforms to what the Conservatives have been campaigning on the last six years. Otherwise it is nothing more than hypocritical hogwash.

But then, that doesn't surprise me, considering the current Republican leadership exhibits little backbone to do what they believe is right, rather than compromising with those of whom they have just soundly beaten in the last election.
No, that would be too easy...

Standard ignorance. Anybody half as smart as you think you are recognized Repub conduct over the last 6 years as hypocritical hogwash every inch of the way.

Maybe they've decided to quit posturing & taking hostages because that won't sell to anybody other than the easily fooled True Believers at this point. Now that they hold both houses, they'll need to act in what passes as a responsible fashion if they're to hold 'em past 2016.

 

[Bitek]

Houses narrowly passes $1.1T spending bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/congress-spending-bill.html

219-206.

Obama helps whip dems to pass the bill.D:

 

[sportage]

Yep! We all knew it.
Not only is Obama a Muslim and a non citizen, he's also a card carrying republican as well.
This whole presidency has been a scam between Boehner ans Obama.
They put on the poker face when the cameras are rolling, and in the evening while having intimate sex together they sip on shirley temples and pink squirrels.
And laugh their asses off at how gullible the American scum are.
OH THE HUMANITY...

But no done deal yet, this bill would be.
The senate will most likely strip out the wall street perks and presents, then pass it back to the house. And there you have WWIII.

 

[trenchfoot]

Where do you get the idea that big money is strictly the domain of the Republicans?
Big money from the upper classes was a major factor in both of Obama's elections. If memory serves, he got a larger amount of funds from the upper class than McCain and Romney. The Democratic Reps and Senators are no different than the Republicans in this case.



I'm afraid it has been this way for a long time, with precious few exceptions on both sides of the aisle.

"Traditionally"? This has been the lie for some time. I'm sorry, but it has been this way for some time. This is what happens when a politician lacks the discipline to stick with his convictions, even over easy money from lobbyists.

Unlimited contributions is a primary factor in political corruption in both parties. Don't delude yourself into thinking that it is only the Republicans.
And don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself.

Yes, I do recall how Obama attracted big whale donations, and for the most part, I agree that as far as presidential elections go, the big money is spread out on both sides of the aisle due primarily to big corps and other large contributors hedging their bets. However, I see a difference in how campaign donations are handled when a strong Repub or Dem seems heavily favored. If the Dem is heavily favored or the race seems to be a dead heat, the Repub will still get more than his "share" of big money. If the Repub candidate seems to have a lock on the election, the Dem will see nary as much, as Repub candidates in general push much harder and much more blatantly for legislation exclusively favoring the rich. A perfect example are those riders the Repubs covertly slipped into the spending bill, whereas the Dems didn't.

In that light, it's still my contention that as a whole, Repub candidates get much more big money whereas the Dems get a whole lot more small ones.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yes, I do recall how Obama attracted big whale donations, and for the most part, I agree that as far as presidential elections go, the big money is spread out on both sides of the aisle due primarily to big corps and other large contributors hedging their bets. However, I see a difference in how campaign donations are handled when a strong Repub or Dem seems heavily favored. If the Dem is heavily favored or the race seems to be a dead heat, the Repub will still get more than his "share" of big money. If the Repub candidate seems to have a lock on the election, the Dem will see nary as much, as Repub candidates in general push much harder and much more blatantly for legislation exclusively favoring the rich. A perfect example are those riders the Repubs covertly slipped into the spending bill, whereas the Dems didn't.

In that light, it's still my contention that as a whole, Repub candidates get much more big money whereas the Dems get a whole lot more small ones.

There was a campaign finance reform law, passed by John McCain, etc., and can we now admit it didn't do shit?

Never will do shit?

It's free speech, and let the best man win.

-John

 

[compuwiz1]

I'm confused. What did we gain by the wave of republican wins in the mid-terms? Seems to me we just got the different end of the same turd. Boner and McConnell just proved that they have no spine, and are, in fact fucking RINOs. I will give them credit for not being a cause of another govt. shut down, but WTF! These guys need to be ditched post haste! Nobody is winning here. All they did is slip a bunch of pork into this, once again proving they do not work the will of the American people. Pig fuckers! No, I will not calm down, Butthead!