'"The government has been operating under a series of temporary appropriations, known as continuing resolutions, since Oct. 1 because of lawmakers’ inability to agree on how much money to provide federal agencies."
This is because the Liberals in Government are refusing to accept the cuts the Conservatives are proposing to control spending. They (Liberals) just keep wanting to up the limit of what they can spend when there is no money to support this.
IP: Logged
07:12 PM
proff Member
Posts: 7393 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
They should cut the money that goes into Welfare Checks, they should screen everyone that receives a welfare/Unemployment check and weed out all the unnecessary people. Lets not cut the paychecks of all the people that defend our nation, but I am sorta biased.
That right there is a huge step in the right direction. But who gets to decide?
Criteria are very simple:
Are you able but unwilling to work? No soup for you!
Able to work means no significant physical or mental disabilities. Wal-Mart will hire and train almost anybody to be a door greeter so physical and mental disabilities will REALLY need to be significant.
Are you unable/unwilling to pass a routine drug test once a week? No soup for you!
Test for everything (including weed) and get a list of required prescriptions.
Are you able and willing to work but can't find a job? Ok...but...
...you have to show proof of applying for jobs and work with a career councilor to help you find gainful employment or get enhanced qualifications. Oh...and pass a weekly drug test.
Are you unable to work because of significant physical or mental disabilities? Ok.
It's that simple. But making people work for a living is wrong.
IP: Logged
08:54 PM
craigsfiero2007 Member
Posts: 3979 From: Livermore, ME Registered: Aug 2007
That right there is a huge step in the right direction. But who gets to decide?
Well, I guess the government would have to train people to do this. I would be happy to do it though, gives me the chance to piss people off and get paid to do it. LOL! The government would save lots of money, if they cut all of the undeserving, unnecessary people out of the welfare system. Wasn't Welfare suppose to be temporary assistance?
IP: Logged
08:57 PM
craigsfiero2007 Member
Posts: 3979 From: Livermore, ME Registered: Aug 2007
Are you able but unwilling to work? No soup for you!
Able to work means no significant physical or mental disabilities. Wal-Mart will hire and train almost anybody to be a door greeter so physical and mental disabilities will REALLY need to be significant.
Are you unable/unwilling to pass a routine drug test once a week? No soup for you!
Test for everything (including weed) and get a list of required prescriptions.
Are you able and willing to work but can't find a job? Ok...but...
...you have to show proof of applying for jobs and work with a career councilor to help you find gainful employment or get enhanced qualifications. Oh...and pass a weekly drug test.
Are you unable to work because of significant physical or mental disabilities? Ok.
It's that simple. But making people work for a living is wrong.
I agree with this. Very Simple, and would weed out alot of people very quickly. Should throw in a required "Money Management" class too, for people that are only poor because they make bad decisions then fall back on the government for welfare.
I agree with this. Very Simple, and would weed out alot of people very quickly. Should throw in a required "Money Management" class too, for people that are only poor because they make bad decisions then fall back on the government for welfare.
Yea, I don't want the Government teaching anyone I know money management.
Perhaps we should send the Politicians to the class first.
As for Wal*Mart hiring ANYBODY, no, I applied at Wal*Mart here, they are not hiring.
Brad
IP: Logged
09:15 PM
PFF
System Bot
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
I got some good news and some bad news The $65Bil the dems are complaining the repubs want to cut is only scratching the surface. That in only 1/250th of the debt. We are in BIG BIG trouble! We are melting just like the Japanese power plants. And it will effect generation for decades.
They should cut the money that goes into Welfare Checks, they should screen everyone that receives a welfare/Unemployment check and weed out all the unnecessary people. Lets not cut the paychecks of all the people that defend our nation, but I am sorta biased.
The Democrats would never do that because those unemployed / freeloaders are their biggest supporting demographic.
While the budget resolution did pass, I wonder if some of the people that actually have read this thread or the news actually knows what a Government shutdown entails? Especially young people.
Not bringing it up as a political issue but rather how gov't works, essentially it means that the budget for the fiscal year has run out and the next has not been planned. HOWEVER, all Government employees will get paid - at some point. Typically, it's the pay period after the actual fiscal budget passes through. If it's just continues to be resolution after resolution, then gov't employees get paid as normal (the voting was to ensure there is money to pay people = extended budget). However, if there is a shutdown, you don't get paid for the shutdown week(s) UNTIL your next pay period (you basically get paid for being off of work, like a vacation). You do get paid. The Government is not going to go without paying it's employees.
As I work for the Federal Government, I of course watched the unfolding voting for the budget resolution, but am not concerned. I have a nest egg that I saved up, and all that will happen is that if gov't were to shut down, I would get a nice two weeks off, then double the pay next pay check. Again there's still a threat it would shut down. They only voted to extend the budget. They'll simply vote again on another extension if the two parties cannot come to a budget agreement, which the way it's going they likely won't.
IP: Logged
06:53 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13797 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
The government shuts down when no budget has been passed.
When the government shuts down (this has happened like 5 times in the past 20 years), the only people who don't get paid are normal government workers. Basic infrastructure (by law) continues to get paid. This includes all military, capitol police, infrastructure staff, and Pentagon / Intelligence officials. The people who don't get paid are the less critical for operations... IE: Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Treasury... etc... but their security staff still stays on...
IP: Logged
07:24 AM
starlightcoupe Member
Posts: 1767 From: Third World Country, OR Registered: Oct 2009
When you are in the military, you get three hots and a cot..What more do you need? Money, you don't need no stinking money.
I was out on the street between hitches, took a two stripe reduction to reup and the best thing I ever saw was the inside of a wooden barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. The CQ woke us at 0430, we went to chow and I remarked, "Damn, I love the Army. Three hots and a cot and $78 a month." Three draftees at the table looked at me like I was insane which I probably was/am.
Between hitches, I worked in a foundry, picked watermelons, sold magazines door-to-door, picked sugar beets in Colorado, etc. After reupping, all I had to do was go on police call, PT, clean the barracks, shoot rifles and run up and down hills. Loved it. Then Vietnam started up and it was downhill all the way.
Edit: During the 1996 government shutdown, military members were still paid but Civil Service workers were furloughed other than "mission essential" personnel. I was considered essential but never paid for the three-four days I worked. I predict there will be a provision to pay military just as it was in '96.
[This message has been edited by starlightcoupe (edited 03-16-2011).]
The government shuts down when no budget has been passed.
When the government shuts down (this has happened like 5 times in the past 20 years), the only people who don't get paid are normal government workers. Basic infrastructure (by law) continues to get paid. This includes all military, capitol police, infrastructure staff, and Pentagon / Intelligence officials. The people who don't get paid are the less critical for operations... IE: Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Treasury... etc... but their security staff still stays on...
And the Parks Department.. hope nobody planned a family vacation around one like I did this year. D'oh!
Originally posted by avengador1: This is because the Liberals in Government are refusing to accept the cuts the Conservatives are proposing to control spending. They (Liberals) just keep wanting to up the limit of what they can spend when there is no money to support this.
quote
Originally posted by loafer87gt: The Democrats would never do that because those unemployed / freeloaders are their biggest supporting demographic.
This thread is marked non-political, so please keep politics out of it fellas. It's a free choice on your part to ignore Cliff's work.
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
IP: Logged
09:28 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35864 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: It's a free choice on your part to ignore Cliff's work.
You mean like putting your signature on every post ? ------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
Originally posted by avengador1: This is because the Liberals in Government are refusing to accept the cuts the Conservatives are proposing to control spending. They (Liberals) just keep wanting to up the limit of what they can spend when there is no money to support this.
quote
Originally posted by loafer87gt: The Democrats would never do that because those unemployed / freeloaders are their biggest supporting demographic.
This thread is marked non-political, so please keep politics out of it fellas. It's a free choice on your part to ignore Cliff's efforts to write the thread category software, please don't choose to disrespect Cliff that way.
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
IP: Logged
09:38 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35864 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: This thread is marked non-political, so please keep politics out of it fellas.
Geeze man, only a select few thinned sacked people can see how a thread is marked. Besides, the forum rules specifically state not to start threads about other threads. If someone other than the original poster conceived a political point and wanted to comment, you are suggesting that he start a thread about another thread, . Just to please Jazzman ?
IP: Logged
09:46 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by Jazzman This thread is marked non-political, so please keep politics out of it fellas.
I will post whatever I feel in this thread. You have no right to try and censure anyone in any thread or section. It is very ignorant on your part to not expect a political reply in a "government" related thread. Pull your head out of the sand, learn to live with it, and become enlightened.
"Optional signature you may use to appear at the bottom of your posts. Do not use offensive text and/or offensive images in your signature. If you fail to comply, your posting rights will be revoked immediately and a ban from this forum may follow. Images that contain a URL or link to a website are not allowed. If you want to link to a website, use a text link instead. You may use PFF Code in this field, but not HTML."
Your first point is incorrect.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Geeze man, only a select few thinned sacked people can see how a thread is marked. Besides, the forum rules specifically state not to start threads about other threads. If someone other than the original poster conceived a political point and wanted to comment, you are suggesting that he start a thread about another thread, . Just to please Jazzman ?
My post in this thread isn't starting a new thread, it's a comment about the behavior of a couple of people in this thread. Your second point is also incorrect, and in fact neither point even applies in the first place.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: I will post whatever I feel in this thread. You have no right to try and censure anyone in any thread or section. It is very ignorant on your part to not expect a political reply in a "government" related thread. Pull your head out of the sand, learn to live with it, and become enlightened.
The classic "I'll do whatever I want and to hell with anyone else" response. Classic from this poster. From wiki: "Censure (pronounced /ˈsɛnʃər/) is a process by which a formal reprimand is issued to an individual by an authoritative body. In a deliberative assembly, a motion to censure is used." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
My post doesn't meet the definition of censure.
More accurately, it met this definition:
admonish (third-person singular simple present admonishes, present participle admonishing, simple past and past participle admonished)
1. To warn or notify of a fault; to reprove gently or kindly, but seriously; to exhort. 2. To counsel against wrong practices; to caution or advise; to warn against danger or an offense; — followed by of, against, or a subordinate clause. 3. To instruct or direct; to inform; to notify.
If this thread was mean to be a political seed then it should have been marked political. If it wasn't, then your politics don't belong in it. Of course, you have the absolute right act like an ass, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.
------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-16-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:42 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Telling someone to "keep politics out of it" is censure. You don't approve of any political statements and criticize anyone doing so.
I too can play the definition game.
cen·sure[ sénshər ]NOUN 1. disapproval: severe criticism 2. official condemnation: official expression of disapproval or condemnation, e.g. of a legislator by the legislature TRANSITIVE VERB cen·sured past and past participle cen·sur·ing present participle cen·sures 3rd person present singular
1. criticize somebody or something: to make a formal, often public statement of disapproval of somebody or something 2. condemn somebody or something officially: to express official disapproval or condemnation of somebody or something, e.g. by a vote of a legislature [ 14th century. < Latin censura "judgment" < censere "appraise" ] cen·sur·a·ble ADJECTIVE cen·sur·er NOUN Word Usage See censor. Word Key: Synonyms See criticize and disapprove.
IP: Logged
11:08 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22714 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Originally posted by JazzMan's response to cliffw: Your first point is incorrect. My post in this thread isn't starting a new thread, it's a comment about the behavior of a couple of people in this thread. Your second point is also incorrect, and in fact neither point even applies in the first place.
You are incorrect, three times. The points apply as you are violating the rules. That was number one. Number two, my first point is correct. Have you read the signature rules ?
quote
Forum Rules Don't overuse your signature! Using your signature once in a thread is usually enough. Also, be sure your signature complies with the signature rules
See, it says using your signature once in a thread is usually enough. You can scream till you are blue bluer in the face. I don't care. You think using it more than once is gonna accomplish anything ? In that quote is a linky for more refined signature rules. Click on it.
quote
Signature rules When to use your signature It's completely unnecessary to include your signature in every single message you post in the same thread. Even though your sig-pic will only be loaded once (and then cached by your browser), it does mean people have to do a lot of unnecessary scrolling.
Thirdly, where exactly does it state that a topic may not stray off topic ? Especially in the off topic section ? Again ...
quote
Forum Rules
Are you posting in the right section? To summerize, the Technical Discussion & Questions section is just that. For technical discussions and questions. So no "what is the best source for polyurethanemethanoloxide bushings?" or "should I paint my Fiero pink or blue-with-polkadots?" threads. Those belong in the General Fiero Chat section. In this (the GFC) section you can also post threads about the forum itself. Or ask who the owner of that blue-with-polkadots Fiero is. Just as long as it's Fiero or Forum related. The Mall section is for Fiero related items only. If you need to sell your computer, your Lexus, your adult video collection, or your cat, then you should post that in the Totally O/T section. Totally O/T stands for "Totally Off Topic", and not for "Let's start a flamewar 'cause I'm bored". A lot of people seem to misunderstand that. In the TO/T section the same rules apply as in the other sections. So keep it civilized, no circumventing the censor system, no threads about threads, yadah, yadah.
Where does it state that we can only post political queeries in religious sections ? It doesn't.
IP: Logged
11:18 AM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35864 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
The Democrats would never do that because those unemployed / freeloaders are their biggest supporting demographic.
Here is a MIND-BENDING Flash of INSPIRATION!! SIMPLE TOO!!! NO WORK for more than a year?? no VOTE. Bye bye spongers..the hard workers could then make SENSIBLE Poll contributions and WIN!!! Oh YESSS!!! Nick
IP: Logged
11:21 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
The classic "I'll do whatever I want and to hell with anyone else" response. Classic from this poster. From wiki: "Censure (pronounced /ˈsɛnʃər/) is a process by which a formal reprimand is issued to an individual by an authoritative body. In a deliberative assembly, a motion to censure is used." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
My post doesn't meet the definition of censure.
More accurately, it met this definition:
admonish (third-person singular simple present admonishes, present participle admonishing, simple past and past participle admonished)
1. To warn or notify of a fault; to reprove gently or kindly, but seriously; to exhort. 2. To counsel against wrong practices; to caution or advise; to warn against danger or an offense; — followed by of, against, or a subordinate clause. 3. To instruct or direct; to inform; to notify.
If this thread was mean to be a political seed then it should have been marked political. If it wasn't, then your politics don't belong in it. Of course, you have the absolute right act like an ass, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.
What are you? The Forum Police? Wikipedia isn't a Credible Reference as it can be edited by anybody. Maybe you should follow the rules and stop over-using your signature in every single post. Its pretty hypocritical to tell someone to follow the rules if you don't follow them yourself. This is like the third thread I have seen Jaxman post in that is attacking someone or being the "Forum Police".
Used to be I'd get all riled up from personal attacks, lol. Gotta have some bit of respect for someone else for their attacks to get under my skin. Not so much anymore. In my old days I considered flooding the forum with political posts, think 400-500 copy-n-paste posts ala Avengador a day, every day, day in and day out. Imagine, go away for an hour and come back to find your last post on page three and fading fast. Two can play the "drown them out with volume if you can't match them with quality" game, hehehe... and there wouldn't have been a darned thing anyone could do about it.
But I'm not like that anymore. The small group (maybe 10-20 total?) responsible for most of the smell would just revel in it, like trying to kill a brain-sucking creature by throwing more brains at it. The end result of rolling in a pig sty is that one is covered with pig feces and merely smells like a pig sty.
If there was some way to filter users like many forums have had to implement to deal with the inevitable problem children it'd be super easy, just click and poof, gone from sight. Alas, the only option offered by Cliff is to filter by topic category and that requires voluntary cooperation by the very problem children that create the need for filtering in the first place. Since the primary goal of the problem children is to have an audience, any audience no matter how unwilling, its inevitable to wind up where we are now.
I've disabled my signature for this post because apparently the words "civility" and "decorum are fightin' words to some, like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
IP: Logged
06:18 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Here is another cut and paste article that shows what is going on in this subject. At least my cut and paste adds something relevant to the discussion, unlike some things someone else is posting here. http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=BDF1-1
quote
54 House Republicans Defect on Spending Bill Defections among rank-and-file House Republicans on the latest short-term U.S. spending bill exposed divisions that may complicate negotiations with Democrats on a broader budget plan.
In Tuesday's House vote, 54 Republicans opposed a measure to fund the government until April 8, forcing their leaders to rely on support from Democrats to pass the bill, 271-158. The legislation aims to give lawmakers more time to break their stalemate over funding the government through Sept. 30. The stopgap measure goes to the Senate, where Democrats who control that chamber expect it to pass and be sent to President Barack Obama.
Joining 186 House Republicans in backing the bill were 85 Democrats. Republicans opposing it included tea party-backed freshmen, other fiscal conservatives who wanted more spending cuts and social conservatives seeking to include policy directives in the measure on issues like abortion.
The vote underscored the challenge for House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, as he works to reach agreement with Democrats on the longer-term 2011 budget.
House Speaker John Boehner “We have no idea what Mr. Boehner can agree to” in the talks, said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second- ranking House Democrat. “You can’t come to an agreement on any kind of compromise with 54 people who can’t compromise with their own leadership.”
Other Democrats said the vote shows that Boehner will have to compromise with their party to enact a spending plan that avoids a government shutdown.
“Speaker Boehner wouldn’t have been able to pass this short-term measure without Democratic votes, and he won’t be able to pass a long-term one without Democratic votes either,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “It’s time for him to abandon the Tea Party and forge a bipartisan compromise.”
The House passed a measureon Feb. 18 for funding the rest of this fiscal year that would cut $61 billion from 2010 spending levels. The bill also would make policy changes, including a defunding of the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul, Planned Parenthood, and public broadcasting. The Senate defeated it last week.
Throughout this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, lawmakers have relied on stopgap measures to avoid a shutdown of non-essential government services. The current spending authority, enacted this month and opposed by only six House Republicans, expires March 18.
Republicans who opposed yesterday’s bill to fund the government for three more weeks said passing another short-term measure only postpones the debate over spending cuts and the policy provisions. The bill would cut $6 billion in spending and omits policy items.
“The American people sent us here to be bold and I don’t think this a bold step,” said Rep. Joe Walsh, a freshman Republican from Illinois who was among those opposing the measure.
Judson Phillips of the Tennessee-based Tea Party Nation called on the group’s members to phone, e-mail, and use social networking tools to lobby lawmakers against the measure because it didn’t include the policy provisions.
“I had three families come up to my office yesterday and ask me to vote against” the bill, said Rep. Allen West, a Republican freshman from Florida who opposed it.
Also urging lawmakers to vote against the measure were the anti-abortion Family Research Council, the Club for Growth, which seeks limited government, and Heritage Action for America, whose website says it advocates “conservative policy.”
After the vote, defectors said they strengthened the Republican position in budget negotiations.
“I think we gain leverage” because Boehner “can say, ‘We’ve taken this thing as far as we can go, and we can’t do anything more unless you give us something,’” said Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican pressing to kill any spending measure that doesn’t defund the healthcare law.
House Republican leaders spent the early part of this week working to shore up support for the short-term measure among their most fiscally conservative members.
Boehner posted a video on his website March 14 saying the House would use other legislation to press ahead on its effort to stop funding for the health-care law.
The Republican-led House will “do everything we can to stop this gravy train and ensure this job-crushing healthcare law is never fully implemented,” the speaker said in the video.
Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a Republican who voted “no” after supporting the previous stopgap spending measure, said party leaders “worked it hard” to get backers for the bill. He also said he didn’t believe there was any dispute within the party about the overall goal of cutting spending.
“We had a difference on strategy — how to get there,” Garrett said.
Also opposing the bill was Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who said the stopgap measure plays into Democrats’ hands because postponing a decision on the entire 2011 budget makes it likely the fight will merge with an upcoming battle over increasing the federal debt limit. He said that debate should focus on bigger changes to government spending, such as cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare.
“The longer we kick this can down the road, the more difficult it is to get to the big stuff,” said Flake. “This is small ball.”
The Treasury Department estimates the government will reach the current limit on government borrowing between April 15 and May 31.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the latest stopgap spending bill will provide some breathing room for lawmakers to work out an agreement on funding through Sept. 30.
He urged quick action. “The president has been clear: with the wide range of issues facing our nation, we cannot keep funding the government in two- or three-week increments,” Carney said. “It is time for us to come together, find common ground and resolve this issue.”
Jazzman maybe you should contribute to the discussion instead of complaining about it or how it is being delivered. What you do adds no value or content to the discussion, it's just you whinning about it and how you don't like it. You are the one who is stinking up the discussion.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-16-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:20 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35864 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Congress approved an additional $6 billion in spending cuts Thursday, passing legislation to keep the government running through April 8 and allow time for talks on a larger package of reductions demanded by Republicans.
"The president is optimistic that Congress can get this done," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
The measure brought the total of cuts to $10 billion since Republicans took control of the House in January on a promise to rein in the federal government. It cleared the Senate on Thursday on 87-13 vote one day after passing the House.
Administration officials have already met with top aides to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry, Reid, D-Nev. to discuss a compromise package of cuts that would be included in a longer-term bill funding the government for the six months remaining in the budget year.
The House has passed a bill calling for $61 billion in cuts, but it lacks enough support to pass in the Senate, and Obama has threatened to veto it.
It is not clear what, if any, progress has been made toward a possible compromise. The most significant decisions aren't expected to be made until lawmakers return to the Capitol after a 10-day vacation.
The $6 billion, combined with $4 billion enacted earlier, drew expressions of satisfaction from Republicans.
"All in all, a good day's work," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
While lawmakers in both parties hailed the $10 billion as the largest cutback in decades, it is dwarfed in the context of a $1.6 trillion deficit estimated for the current fiscal year.
Any attempt to cut significantly into the red ink would have to expand beyond the domestic programs covered by the bill that passed Thursday, and include benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
With a new three-week timetable set for negotiations, Republicans, Democrats and the White House all maneuvered for position.
"It's time for President Obama to finally come to the table and start engaging in this discussion," Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said in a statement.
But one Senate Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, sought to drive a political wedge between Boehner and the 87 first-term Republican lawmakers in the House, many of them backed by tea party supporters.
"Speaker Boehner wouldn't have been able to pass this short-term measure without Democratic votes, and he won't be able to pass a long-term one without Democratic votes either," he said.
"It's clear that there is no path to compromise that goes through the tea party. We urge Speaker Boehner to push ahead without them. We are ready to work with him if he is willing to buck the extreme element of his party."
Schumer's remark was a reference to the 54 House Republicans who opposed the $6 billion bill on Wednesday. But in fact, of the first-term conservatives most often identified as tea party-backed, 66 voted for the measure and only 21 were opposed.
Boehner's office issued a statement saying the cuts approved so far "are nowhere close to what is needed; nor are they an adequate substitute for a long-term bill that cuts spending and funds the government through September — legislation the Senate has consistently failed to pass.
"Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and they remain the majority party in Washington. Where is their plan? Who is in charge?"
Purely in numerical terms, the two sides are tens of billions of dollars apart.
Beyond the cuts themselves, though, Obama has spoken forcefully against attempts by House Republicans to cut funding that pays teacher salaries, among other priorities.
Additionally, the House-passed bill includes numerous provisions that are not directly related to budget cuts, and are opposed by the White House and most Democrats. Among them are proposals to cut all the funding needed to implement the year-old health care law, block federal regulations scheduled to take effect on several industries, and deny all federal funds to Planned Parenthood.
Additionally, while Republicans argue that deep cuts in federal spending are needed to help private companies create jobs, Democrats counter that some of the cuts contained in the House-passed measure could mean layoffs for teachers and others who are on government payrolls.
The Senate voted as House Republicans were approving yet another bill to cut spending, this one drafted to end federal support for National Public Radio.
The bill cleared on a partisan vote of 228-192, and the White House issued a statement in advance criticizing the measure but stopping short of a veto threat.
The bill would bar the government from funding NPR, and prohibit local public radio stations from using any of their federal funds to pay dues to the organization or buy its programs.
The government would save lots of money, if they cut all of the undeserving, unnecessary people out of the welfare system. Wasn't Welfare suppose to be temporary assistance?
. Just to please Jazzman ?
