|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-03-2006, 07:41 AM
|
#1 |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
House (Republicans) Vote 216-214 To Cut Benefits To Poor, Elderly and Students
In the guise of deficit reduction. A grand farce really. Bush continues setting spending records while republicans continue the tax cuts for the rich.
And the cut represents a whole one half of one percent of the 14 trillion plus federal spending over the next five years. ------------------------------------------------------- Budget Cuts Pass By a Slim Margin Poor, Elderly and Students to Feel Pinch By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A01 The House yesterday narrowly approved a contentious budget-cutting package that would save nearly $40 billion over five years by imposing substantial changes on programs including Medicaid, welfare, child support and student lending. With its presidential signature all but assured, the bill represents the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans. Women on welfare are likely to face longer hours of work, education or community service to qualify for their checks. Recipients of Medicaid can expect to face higher co-payments and deductibles, especially on expensive prescription drugs and emergency room visits for non-emergency care. More affluent seniors will find it far more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-covered nursing care. College students could face higher interest rates when their banks get squeezed by the federal government. And some cotton farmers will find support payments nicked. State-led efforts to force deadbeat parents to pay their child support may also have to be curtailed. Yesterday's 216 to 214 vote, largely along party lines, gave a much-needed boost to President Bush, who is trying to reassert his control over domestic policy despite a series of legislative setbacks and near-record-low approval ratings. Bush had pushed many of the changes since he unveiled his 2006 budget proposal a year ago. Thirteen Republicans joined 200 Democrats and one independent in voting against the measure. All Republican House members from Maryland and Virginia voted for the measure, while all Democrats voted against it. The victory was seen by some as helpful to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on the eve of a leadership election that he hopes will elevate him to House majority leader. A defeat could have rekindled questions over Blunt's ability to round up votes and manage the House floor. Republican leaders said passage was a critical step toward containing the runaway growth of entitlement programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, that threaten to consume the budget as baby boomers begin to retire. "American taxpayers, and anyone concerned with the nation's long-term fiscal stability, have won a great victory today," said House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio). But Democrats blasted the White House and Republicans for allowing states to reduce Medicaid coverage and boost fees for Medicaid programs for the poor and disabled at the same time the president is calling for making permanent tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The fight over the bill exposed deep divisions between conservative Republicans who drove many of the policy changes and some GOP moderates worried that the cuts hit the poor too hard. The House passed the measure at 6:07 a.m. on Dec. 19 after a grueling night of last-minute negotiations. Vice President Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote Dec. 22 to secure passage in the Senate by the narrowest of margins, but Democrats were able to make minor changes, forcing yesterday's House vote. That gave opponents more than a month to pressure House moderates to reconsider their votes, and it allowed new analyses to surface. In recent days, separate Congressional Budget Office documents estimated that Medicaid changes would impose new costs on 13 million poor recipients and end insurance coverage for 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, that cuts to federal child-support enforcement funds would shift costs to the states and eliminate billions of dollars in child-support payments, and that changes made to the Senate-passed budget package saved private Medicare insurers $22 billion over 10 years. Those reports reinvigorated Democratic charges that the budget measure exemplified a congressional culture that protects the moneyed interests and their well-connected lobbyists at the expense of the unrepresented poor. "This bill is Exhibit A for special interests and lobbyists writing legislation behind closed doors at the expense of the ordinary citizen," Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said yesterday. But with the federal budget deficit expected to rise again this year, to around $360 billion, Republicans implored their members to take what Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) called "this first step toward long-term, fiscal discipline and fiscal health for our government." The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill. "I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts." The policy changes in the budget legislation are significant. The bill allows state governments to impose new co-payments and deductibles on Medicaid recipients, a power sought by governors of both political parties to try to slow the exploding costs of the health program. It makes it far more difficult for middle- and upper-income seniors to attain Medicaid coverage for nursing care by transferring assets to family members, then pleading poverty. The bill will end federal payments to the states for the administration of child-support enforcement efforts. It will allow some interest rates on student loans to rise and fall with the market, squeezing student lenders and, in some cases, college students. And it will make changes to the basic welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, that would push states to tighten work requirements for women on assistance, a provision pushed hard by the administration for nearly four years. It will also raise billions of dollars through an auction of the broadcast spectrum that will facilitate the spread of digital television while reserving more space for emergency response broadcasts. And it will repeal a law -- considered illegal under international trade rules -- that directs payments of some import duties to the companies impacted by unfair trade practices. Instead, those duties will go to the U.S. Treasury. http://tinyurl.com/ahen7 |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
02-03-2006, 07:44 AM
|
#2 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,010
|
so, oh great and wise knowing one
where do you suggest the cuts come from? |
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:49 AM
|
#3 |
|
RIP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16,581
Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf |
He doesn't propose any cuts, he proposes to raise your taxes instead. Screw that.
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:52 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:59 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,010
|
Quote:
you b**** about not giving enough to fund the Iraq war and then when we do (I assume some of that increase is due to armor and all of that) you b**** about spending too much you b**** the government (federal) didn't do enough to aid Katrina....when they do, you b**** that it is too much you b**** that the government cut student loan money...this article proves I was right, not the money, just how much money the banks get, but you still b**** about it do you have any solutions or are you just b****ing b/c you are a sad bitter person? |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:01 AM
|
#6 |
|
RIP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16,581
Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf |
no slug is just a b**** hence the reason slug b****es...
 |
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:09 AM
|
#7 |
|
Bleedin' orange!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mile High
Posts: 20,018
Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith |
How about we DON"T SPEND $250,000,000,000 (Billion) on the wasted efford AKA the war in Iraq, with another $120,000,000,000 (Billion) earmarked for this year!
That's 7.4 Billion avg from each state. I feel sorry for my children and future grandchildren, who will have to foot the bill for Bush and Co's spending habits! |
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:09 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
Links? Or are you just trying generalize and throw sh*t out there? I know exactly what I've said and haven't said. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:11 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,010
|
Quote:
whether or not going in was right or not, is moot at this point in time we need to finish the job, it will be a worse mess if we just pull up and leave right now those funds are necessary unfortunately |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:12 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,010
|
Quote:
I don't need no stinkin' links  |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:20 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
 But I'll play and then you can write down your solutions. Iraq is a nothing but a sieve of lost and wounded Americans and money now. We leave this year and let the radical religious dirt bags over there fight it out among themselves (something they'll do whether we are there or not). Put back in place the tax on America's rich that Bush rescinded. Take away Bush's magical spending pen that has and is leading this country to bankruptcy. Take the money from Iraq and secure our borders and invest in alternative and renewable energies (which would start bringing returns back immediately in the form of new technolgy research and corporations). Terminate the Missile Defense Shield program (ICBMs trying to shoot down ICBMs). Just a start but it would get us moving in the right direction. Last edited by Bronco_Beerslug; 02-03-2006 at 08:29 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:23 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Bleedin' orange!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mile High
Posts: 20,018
Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith |
Quote:
39%(+-) of the public is still cheering for the chimp! Unbelievable! I'll bet that number decreases as mid term elections approach! |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:25 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 17,010
|
Quote:
lord you sound young |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 08:40 AM
|
#14 | |
|
Bleedin' orange!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mile High
Posts: 20,018
Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith |
Quote:
2.What makes you think I'm young? 3.FYI, I didn't dodge my commitments to this country like "your fearless leader did". |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:23 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 52,694
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:27 PM
|
#16 | ||
|
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 52,694
|
Quote:
Quote:
 We already know what their "solution" is going to be: "Stay the course" (since King George is never wrong and never makes mistakes.) |
||
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:29 PM
|
#17 | |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Quote:
You must have forgot to give us your solutions for cleaning up this Bush mess. So what are they? Last edited by Bronco_Beerslug; 02-03-2006 at 07:32 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:30 PM
|
#18 |
|
Hokie since 1993
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 45,991
Adopt-a-Bronco: Tom Jackson |
Less Federal Government...
Pell Grants...the most I ever got out of a Pell Grant was 200 dollars 12 years ago in College....whoo hooo!!...That took me far. I think I spent it all in one place. |
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 07:49 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 52,694
|
Quote:
 |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 09:35 PM
|
#20 |
|
Mr Diplomacy
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,438
Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller |
we couldnt afford to do Nation building in Iraq , Bush knew this , so now all you Fúckers that voted for Bush put us in this hole , we all want milk and honey , but we dont want to pay for it ............
How in the fúck can you be in a war and not raise taxes ? I know lets send the troops over there with no body armor , and poorly armored humvees ,after all fúck the troops , they dont need armor , bastards should learn to move faster ........... funny when it comes to taxes the narrow view of some ........... Support the troops send baby wipes thats all they need ............. |
|
|
|
|
02-03-2006, 09:49 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 52,694
|
Quote:
The pinhead and his brain-dead followers are always going on and on about how "we're at war, we're at war," but America has never tried to fight a war while giving massive tax cuts to its wealthiest citizens before. The corporations, millionaires, and billionaires would get along just fine without these hundreds of billions in tax cuts. If Dim Son really wanted to turn the economy around, he'd ask his super-rich friends to give something back to the system that made it possible for them to get fat to begin with. As things stand now, these f_ckers are enjoying all of the spoils of war while ordinary Americans and the middle class take on all of the sacrifices. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2006, 03:59 PM
|
#22 |
|
Angling in the Deep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains
Posts: 24,281
|
Fiscal discipline on the backs of the needy
OUR OPINION: REJECT BUDGET BILL IN FAVOR OF MORE SENSIBLE SAVINGS The so-called Deficit Reduction Act is a prime example of how good intentions become laws that favor special interests at the expense of vulnerable populations that don't have high-priced lobbyists. This budget bill (S 1932) should have included more-sensible spending cuts, called for by the Senate, in both Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, lawmakers chose House provisions that promise greater hardship for needy beneficiaries and higher costs for local communities. Deficit to grow Adding insult to injury, the budget bill won't reduce the deficit with its projected $38.8 billion in savings over five years. Pending tax-cut measures that will cost between $60 billion to $95 billion over five years not only will wipe out any savings but actually increase the deficit. These priorities are out of whack. That's why the House, which has scheduled a final vote on the Deficit Reduction Act today, should reject the bill and send it back to a conference committee for retooling. As it stands, the budget bill will raise healthcare costs for millions of Medicaid beneficiaries. It will add stringent rules that will disqualify many seniors from Medicaid nursing-home coverage. And it cuts programs that help states collect child-support payments and pay for foster care. One provision would require all U.S. citizens to provide a birth certificate or passport or be dropped from Medicaid. This alone will cause hardship, if not, in fact, disqualify people who lost their papers in Katrina and other disasters, as well as many elderly Southern blacks who never were given birth certificates. The cuts in Medicare and Medicaid alone account for more than half of the bill's savings over 10 years. But those savings do not consider the added expenses that will be borne by local hospitals and taxpayers who pick up the tab for people who will end up in the emergency room because they can't afford the co-payments for preventive care or those cut from Medicaid altogether. Industry pressure Particularly galling were the closed-door negotiations that eliminated sensible Senate provisions. Pushed by health insurers, House and Senate conferees diluted provisions to curb overpayments to HMOs that cover Medicare beneficiaries. Thus, $22 billion in potential savings over 10 years were given back to HMOs. Another Senate provision would have cut Medicaid's prescription-drug costs. Opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacists, it was diluted by $7.5 billion. House lawmakers should reject the budget bill and insist that these Senate provisions be restored. Other provisions that will increase the ranks of the uninsured should be axed. Congress also should pare down the tax cuts. Fiscal discipline mustn't come only at the expense of the poor and infirm. http://tinyurl.com/82q4j |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 02:41 PM
|
#23 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,232
|
You must stop with the banter. We are in Iraq, for the duration. Simple. Accept it. Move on. To pull out now would permanently injure the entire country for a lot longer than finishing the job. That said, find me a democrat who can stand up to the heat. Forget Clinton, ain't happenin, she's a woman and the american people aren't ready for that......keep in mind she needs correct ALL THE SHORTCOMINGS you say the bush admin has. Present her, and lets see how she is going to correct the problem. I want to hear some "problem solving" and quit being "part of the problem". There is alot of people in the country that are comfortable "pointing fingers" instead of sitting back, identifying the real problem, and coming up with a solution. Whats your solution? Lets hear it. And, impeaching the Prez isn't a fix. Expend energy really coming up with a way to fix the problem is the solution. You have the floor, let's hear it....dman
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 02:53 PM
|
#24 |
|
RIP
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16,581
Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf |
IMO the first thing that should be done is eliminate the tax returns but not increasing taxes either. After that see how much money we are short off and then go after the programs that have not met their goals, are wasteful, etc and cut them. If still short then I say we bite the bullet till we get out of Iraq, but that will be a 22 bullet instead of a tank round.
I've already written my congressman telling him to **** can the idea of tax returns. |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2006, 03:07 PM
|
#25 |
|
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,232
|
Interesting. A detailed breakdown of what happens to a tax "dollar" may be required from where I sit. Where does $1.00 of our taxes go, today? I am in total agreement on the above. I believe that we as americans can sustain a good quality of life if we all were required to give a small % in taxes every year to the gov and don't bother with filing unless you've got a reason to file. The only reason to file is , you haven't paid all of your taxes. Get rid of the off shore tax free accts, it's all reportable as income based on the fact that you are an american citizen. I also believe that business, whether large or small, and commerce is absolutely imperative to a thriving economy. How they would be affected , I am still contemplating, however, the large tax breaks for the very large conglomerates would have to be cut is what I'm thinking.
I wonder how many Billions of dollars goes to people who handle the tax documentation, drafting, etc...etc......with respect to the subject of "taxes" all by itself. Scary if you ask me. I'm sure there is some elderly folks out there who could be using that money and not have to decide between eating and medicine, if you know what I mean...dman |
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
Linear Mode
