The GOP’s latest poison pill - According to Democrats

Trying not to puke while typing this.......

The GOP’s latest poison pill

Lankford's bill is interesting. Here's the description from his congressional office:

If Congress fails to approve a budget by the end of each fiscal year, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act would ensure that all operations remain running normally without any interruption of services by automatically triggering a continuing resolution (CR) or short-term, stop-gap spending device.

The bill creates an automatic CR for any regular appropriations bill not completed before the end of the fiscal year. After the first 120 days, auto-CR funding would be reduced by one percentage point and would continue to be reduced by that margin every 90 days.

www.washingtonpost.com...


So, the US is in debt, 17 trillion dollars. Moderate estimates that will increase over a trillion every year.....but dare mention spending cuts and you are labeled as evil.

and a post from the author says a lot.....

It is the job of Congress to spend money into the economy. They have to run a deficit.

What? WHAT? Do liberals actually believe this? Is the only answer taxation, or cuts to anything but entitlement programs? I am in complete agreement with the bill - ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS.


Edit for those who maybe confused (or refuses to read the article)

The author of the article is against a GOP motion to cut spending by 1% for any regular appropriations bill not completed before the end of the fiscal year.

Catch the problem?

The Lankford bill creates a world in which the failure to fund the government leads to automatic, across-the-board spending cuts. That's not a world in which there are "continued incentives for Congress and the President to reach agreement on regular appropriations bills." It's a world in which Republicans who want spending cuts have a continued incentive to refuse to reach agreement on bills to fund the government.

If Lankford wanted to incentivize both sides to come to a deal he'd propose a bill that paired automatic spending cuts with automatic tax increases.

reply to post by MidnightTide


HAVE to run a deficit?

HAVE to spend money?

Idiots!

I think the percentage that spending is reduced every 90 days should double each time.

If you only decrease it 1% each time, the cuts get progressively smaller. They should get bigger.

I say we take off and Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

watchitburn
I say we take off and Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

I laughed so hard, the person in the next office over came to see what was so damned funny!

reply to post by MidnightTide

Pease help me out here. Sometimes what I read just does not make sense to me. I'm getting old you know.

Your OP is about this bill written by Republican Congressman Lankford. Yes?

This bill presents stopgap measures to insure the continued funding of government functions to avoid a shutdown. Yes?

You then offer a quote by the author of the bill, Lankford.

It is the job of Congress to spend money into the economy. They have to run a deficit.

Yes?

And here is where I get confused. While I thought I was reading a quote made by a very conservative Tea Party favorite, Lanksford, I was then turned around by your comment about the liberals and their spending policies as if the author of the bill was a liberal rather than a conservative.

And finally, you label the bill as the GOP'S latest poison pill but then go on to declare that you are in complete agreement with it.

Can you see why I'm all mixed up here?

i like the term Nuclear Grenade. With a blast radius of 100 feet It’s a devastating weapon, but a man can only throw it about 15 feet. can’t run away from the blast radius. Thats how i feel the government conducts its self.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Poison Pill was the term used by the Washington Post writer Ezra Klein that wrote the linked article.

I believe the quote that you have mentioned was from the same writer, according to the OP, but I did not find the quote in the article.

reply to post by butcherguy


Quote is from the author of the article, in the comment section. That is where the truth lies.

reply to post by MidnightTide

Thanks for clearing that up.
I have read enough of his crap to guess that it was him.

beezzer
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

HAVE to run a deficit?

HAVE to spend money?

Idiots!

Agreed, they are idiots. I advocate we recall all of them. Who knows the recall process per each state lol. We need rich benefactor to help fund the project.

Along with recall we need to make some other changes:

A. Term limits. No more career politicians serving money pacs instead of the people. Two terms is more than enough time, we will ensure new ideas also continue and should mean elected officials get back to serving the people.

B. Campaign finance : We need to reform it again and make it supreme Court proof. Side note, the supreme Court in the last fifteen years has changed. They are actually making law which is not their job. No one, especially corporations or foreign entities should not be allowed to give millions to candidates through political pacs and influence elections. This must stop. Let's get back to good old stumping and free debates, that is all that is needed. No need to spend millions on campaigns, let's put that money into helping people.

C. Third-party : It is clear the only way we are going to get the dems and repubs compromising and working together is to force them. We need a strong third party that has enough seats in both senate and house to force them to compromise.

In reality the next president will hold the key i think. Because he will likely be able to tip the supreme court. Must be done to actually make your laws seem constitutional by passing through the court. He can also submit amendments to the constitution. Of course this is monumental task that he or she may not be president to see. It will take changes to the constitution to actually see change. For one the electorate, it is not what the founders meant it to be, especially with all the part manipulation. It should be the popular vote that determines the Presidency.

So how bout it, a new independent ATS party, whole mandate is to make the two parties work together and compromise. Maybe we could organize recall efforts.

I don't know about you all but I am sick of the status quo.

The Bot

reply to post by MidnightTide


Now that you have done a fuller job of explaining the OP, and fixing the Title, it is much clearer what you are trying to present. Thank you for your clarifications. I did not refuse to read the article, it is just that there is sooo much stuff published here on ATS with long long long quotes and references to books and videos and all, I have most of the time taken to trying to understand what the OP is presenting before delving into any possible long and winded quotes or references. Hence, as your OP was confusing, especially with the quote from the author, which was not the author of the bill but as you say the author of the article? I mean how was one to know what you meant there. But I've got it now thanks to Butcher Boy and your re-edits.

Thanks