Paul Ryan Budget: House Passes Bill To Spare Defense, Cut Food Aid, Health Care

[francoHFW]

More like, what poor shlubs do they want to attack...thank god adults are in charge...

 

[SniperFire]

While I realize the Rs don't care if children and the elderly starve to death ... (in fact, I suspect, they would prefer it because then they wouldn't have to pretend to give a rat's ass) ... something we all need to think about is that if Mittens was prez, he'd sign this in a New York minute.

As it is now, many children and elderly do go to bed every night hungry. No, this is not an issue of "budget". Its an issue of humanity.

There are other sources for the money we need. We do not need to take food out of the mouths of children.

Do the Democrats care about a constitutionally-mandated budget?

nah...

And our mainstream media just gives them a free pass.

They hate to point out the nation's first mulatto POTUS is a complete failure.

 

[Billo_Really]

We need to end the GOP's "War on American's" by voting these corporate loving bitches out of office.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We need to end the GOP's "War on American's" by voting these corporate loving bitches out of office.

Succinct and true.

I'll be doing my part and the way Mittens has been lying, I suspect a lot of others will too. Its not like they can actually vote for him!

 

[Stephanie]

By Michael McAuliff

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday passed its plan to spare the military's growing budget from mandatory cuts, instead slashing Medicaid, benefits for federal workers and programs to help feed hungry Americans.

The House drew up the "reconciliation budget" in hopes of heading off automatic cuts mandated in last summer's deal to raise the nation's debt limit. Under that deal, $1.2 trillion must be "sequestered" -- that is, cut -- from the budget over the next 10 years, with about half coming from the military. Such reductions would still allow the defense budget to grow by 20 percent.

The House GOP plan passed 218 to 199, with 16 Republicans and all Democrats voting no. It replaces about $100 billion in the mandatory cuts next year and more than $300 billion over the next decade.

Rather than decrease military spending, the plan reduces projected outlays elsewhere. The proposal, which emerged from the House Budget Committee chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Monday, would cut $83 billion in federal retirement benefits (equivalent to about a 5 percent pay cut), save $49 billion by capping medical malpractice lawsuits, slash about $48 billion from Medicaid programs and cut food aid by more than $36 billion.

More: Paul Ryan Budget: House Passes Bill To Spare Defense, Cut Food Aid, Health Care

tissue?

 

[hortysir]

Fuck the mindless a-holes...LOL Who the HELL are they afraid of LOL

Yet more pub electioneering- they never stop that, or screwing with the nonrich and the country...and the sky is falling dupes...I know, cut taxes on the rich!!

Why are you afraid of passing and adhering to a budget?

 

[Stephanie]

We need to end the GOP's "War on American's" by voting these corporate loving bitches out of office.

forward.............................

 

[Billo_Really]

Succinct and true.

I'll be doing my part and the way Mittens has been lying, I suspect a lot of others will too. Its not like they can actually vote for him!

I also feel the same way about democrats who move to the right. I voted for Obama last time, but ever since he's adopted the neocon foreign policy agenda, I will not be voting for him this time.

Both left and right, should vote out all incumbants.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One is the Constitutional duty of the Federal gubmint, the other is a responsibility of local and state concerns.

Read up on it.

It has nothing to do with the Constitution, it has only to do with rightist dogma.

It's not the dogma, it's the money.



Which do you think brings in more campaign contributions, spending a billion on defense or spending a billion on education? Which do you think will matter more in 100 years?

Will the future praise the cunning wealth building techniques employed by the likes of Halliburton, or shake their heads in disgust, like we do over slavers and other brutish but profitable endeavors described in our checkered history?

The only way to get the hand of congress out of the cookie jar is a fair and simple tax code coupled with public budgets that are balanced by law. Only then will prioritizing the limited resources of this generation be possible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

While I realize the Rs don't care if children and the elderly starve to death ... (in fact, I suspect, they would prefer it because then they wouldn't have to pretend to give a rat's ass) ... something we all need to think about is that if Mittens was prez, he'd sign this in a New York minute.

As it is now, many children and elderly do go to bed every night hungry. No, this is not an issue of "budget". Its an issue of humanity.

There are other sources for the money we need. We do not need to take food out of the mouths of children.

You are a lying piece of horse shit. But do keep it up it is so entertaining. State and Local Governments are responsible for those programs. Go ahead provide a quote from an article of the Constitution that authorizes Federal Money for such programs. You remember that document right? It spells out what the Fed can do?

Until the federal government gets its house in order, way too much money is flowing toward Washington, and the states and locals have no tax base left to keep basic infrastructure intact, let alone keep all the little bastards we neglected to educate over the last 20 years from dying in the streets.

 

[Oddball]

While I realize the Rs don't care if children and the elderly starve to death ... (in fact, I suspect, they would prefer it because then they wouldn't have to pretend to give a rat's ass) ... something we all need to think about is that if Mittens was prez, he'd sign this in a New York minute.

As it is now, many children and elderly do go to bed every night hungry. No, this is not an issue of "budget". Its an issue of humanity.

There are other sources for the money we need. We do not need to take food out of the mouths of children.

You are a lying piece of horse shit. But do keep it up it is so entertaining. State and Local Governments are responsible for those programs. Go ahead provide a quote from an article of the Constitution that authorizes Federal Money for such programs. You remember that document right? It spells out what the Fed can do?

Until the federal government gets its house in order, way too much money is flowing toward Washington, and the states and locals have no tax base left to keep basic infrastructure intact, let alone keep all the little bastards we neglected to educate over the last 20 years from dying in the streets.

Yeah, well what if all that money ostensibly earmarked for all those good things stayed in the states, rather than lining the pockets of federal bureaucrats, before they pick and choose who gets the scraps?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't think it's lining the pockets of federal bureaucrats nearly as much as it is federal contractors.

 

[Oddball]

Who friggin' cares?

The resources are diminished at any and every step they take, between the point from those who have those funds taken and those who end up with the loot....The rest is just bureaucratic semantics.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not necessarily...

True, resources wasted running a bloated bureaucracy are just as gone as those wasted rewarding fat campaign contributions with fat contracts, the difference is how the waste sparked by campaign money is self perpetuating.

If we move toward a fair and simple tax code, we cut deeply in to corporate welfare - after that, ass-u-me-ing we tie their hands with a balanced budget requirement, our representatives will actually have the time to simplify and streamline the rules and bureaucracies that provide the public welfare safety net, hopefully in an effort to keep that net from remaining 'comfortable'.

 

[tenthertoo]

Are they cuts or (as usual) merely a reduction in projected spending?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are they cuts or (as usual) merely a reduction in projected spending?

The latter. In Washington that's how it works.
Imagine your family worked this way. OK, you decided you want to take a European vacation next summer. You budget $10k for the family to go. You get laid off and income starts dropping. SO you cancel the vacation. Then instead of spending 10k on the vacation you spend 9k on a new speedboat and declare you've saved a thousand dollars.

 

[tenthertoo]

Are they cuts or (as usual) merely a reduction in projected spending?

I know nothing about the Ryan proposal but I knew the answer of course. You don't need to look into the DC details to know what's really going on if you've been alive and conscious for as long as I have.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's really not surprising that The Rs lied last year and have broken their word this year. Their word means nothing and the Ds fell for it - again.

 

[DiamondDave]

By Michael McAuliff

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday passed its plan to spare the military's growing budget from mandatory cuts, instead slashing Medicaid, benefits for federal workers and programs to help feed hungry Americans.

The House drew up the "reconciliation budget" in hopes of heading off automatic cuts mandated in last summer's deal to raise the nation's debt limit. Under that deal, $1.2 trillion must be "sequestered" -- that is, cut -- from the budget over the next 10 years, with about half coming from the military. Such reductions would still allow the defense budget to grow by 20 percent.

The House GOP plan passed 218 to 199, with 16 Republicans and all Democrats voting no. It replaces about $100 billion in the mandatory cuts next year and more than $300 billion over the next decade.

Rather than decrease military spending, the plan reduces projected outlays elsewhere. The proposal, which emerged from the House Budget Committee chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Monday, would cut $83 billion in federal retirement benefits (equivalent to about a 5 percent pay cut), save $49 billion by capping medical malpractice lawsuits, slash about $48 billion from Medicaid programs and cut food aid by more than $36 billion.

More: Paul Ryan Budget: House Passes Bill To Spare Defense, Cut Food Aid, Health Care

Good

The federal government is constitutionally charged with national defense.. and is not constitutionally charged to act like your mommy and take care of all your personal wants, needs, whims, and responsibilities

 

[zeke]

Which do you think brings in more campaign contributions, spending a billion on defense or spending a billion on education?

And here we have someone that understands how a plutocracy works.

And poor people on food stamps and working minimum wage jobs or living on UE, they don't make big campaign donations either. So fukem the rethugs say.

Though I don't unnastan how the Rethugs can make an agreement, renege on the agreeement, then expect to be applauded for lying about what they would agree to do.
Amazing.

And just who the fuck is the "enemy" the rethugs are so afraid of that we need to spend even more billions on defense corporation welfare?

And it ain't like the additional billions will go to the troops as a pay raise.

Most of the billions would go to Red states with huge defense contractors. Ain't that nice.;

And someone point out where in a states constitution it says the states have to take care of the poor and needy. Is there a "must provide welfare" clause in most state constitutions?