January 2nd, 2013
08:02 AM ET
Finally the deal is done Late Tuesday night the House passed the Senate bill avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. President Obama and Vice President Biden appeared in the White House briefing room to to tout a campaign promise kept.
President Obama wasted no time boarding M1 just before midnight to begin the trip back to his vacationing family in Hawaii. He'll need to take advantage of this brief vacation in the sun. This bill only delayed the automatic cuts in federal spending by two months and by then the debt ceiling will need to be addressed, two very thorny issues. OFFICIAL SCHEDULE |
  |
 |
|||
|
|
|
||||
This calls for another vacation to Hawaii at taxpayer expense and several more rounds of golf.
YOU NEED A VACATION FROM ALL YOUR WHINING. YOU WILL BE DOING US ALL A FAVOR.
This is not "another vacation" it is the same one that was cut short by the GOP dyfunctional congress.
oh heck...whats another $7,000,000,000.00 vacation when you consider he just raised our debt another $4,000,000,000,000.00 or so? It isn't coming from obama's pocket. obama acts like his father would have after getting a new free cady and a credit card. Americans got what they bought not what they thought! hahah
We can see you failed math.
WHILE HE IS NO CLINTON OR EVEN CARTER FOR TAKING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF VACATION DAYS IN RECENT HISTORY, HE'S STILL NOT AS BAD AS GEORGE W. BUSH NOT ONLY WITH TAKING THE MOST OUT OF ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, BUT ALSO WITH DEFICIT SPENDING AND CRATERING THE ECONOMY AND THE DEBT. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Jerry, get yourself a new brain. You have been sploit for too long.
And spelling too!
actually the same vacation cut short because the repo morons in congress couldn't get their act together. But what can you expect from a group who's leader john is a potty mouth looser . The repos are such a class act. Not!
john is a potty mouth? Do you actually read what you write?
PROBABLY FROM THE INCIDENT THAT WAS REPORTED ABOUT BOEHNER TELLING REID TO 'GO F**** ' HIMSELF.
I THOUGHT IT WAS HILARIOUS AND IT REMINDED ME OF CLINT EASTWOOD.
I WOULD BET THERE'S A LOT OF THAT GOING ON RIGHT NOW, BETWEEN AND WITHIN BOTH PARTIES.
Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall?
IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE GREAT YOUTUBE MATERIAL. WE MAY YET SEE THE 'MOTHER OF ALL' BRAWLS IN CONGRESS AND PARLIAMENTS AROUND THE WORLD. SOMEONE'S EAR IS DEFINITELY GETTING CHEWED OFF.
SERIOUSLY THOUGH, I THINK BOEHNER IS IN A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH HIS PARTY. HE MAY NOT GET TO BE SPEAKER FOR MUCH LONGER. LIKE MAYBE IN 24 HOURS?
ANYBODY KNOW WHO'S THE WORSE POTTY MOUTH: VP DICK CHENEY OR VP JOE BIDEN? WE NEED A SWEAR-OFF.
Bonehead is no saint...look up his involvment with ALEC and how about the Lizabeth Lyons affair?
WELL, BY NOT PUTTING SANDY RELIEF TO A VOTE, HE MAY VERY WELL JUST F***ED HIMSELF.
SOMEWHERE, CANTOR IS LICKING IS CHOPS AND CHRIS CHRISTIE IS SWEARING UP A STORM, MORE THAN USUAL.
Wonder when Christie will develop a taste for bolting the dysfunctional GOP?
Why did Obama come back? Politics. Obama did not work out anything, Biden and McConnell had to do it.
HE CAME BACK TO DEAL WITH BOEHNER. TOO BAD BOEHNER COULDN'T DEAL WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE, FAILING MISERABLY WITH PLAN B, SO HE HAD TO PUNT IT TO THE SENATE. THAT'S WHERE THOSE TWO DANCE PARTNERS COME IN AND WENT GANGNAM STYLE ON THE SENATE.
He came back because it was the right thing to do, and yes it was the president's hand that steered the course the negotiations would take.
Marie,
That is called Leadership, stupid. The general knows how to put the foot solider to work. Good Lord, where have you been.
OBAMA DID NOTHING!!!! He worked out nothing and made no one work. And now he is off, back to Hawaii to play his 200th round of golf or something ridiculous
Well yes honey, the reason he came back was Politics. Isn't that the major activity associated with D.C? Besides a captain should be on hand to take the helm and steer the ship of state. You would have been complaining even louder if he hadn't.
Good, he should have some vacation time and screw the GOP and their B/S games. The GOP is going to be voted OUT next election,
Agreed. I for one will work diligently to see that the Party of No is wiped out in the next election cycle. Let's just hope the Tea Nuts (Bohner, Trump, Nugent, Limbaugh, Perry), dont do something truely stupid like start a second civil war.
Unfortunately, that group could do it.
Let's raise some taxes, add $3.8 trillion to the debt and then meet for tee time, FORE!
If the spending cuts don't happen, Republicans have a hand to play. If they don't politically screw it up like last time we are talking about a Repub Senate and House that Obama will have to deal with. Not to mention like 7 Democrat seats up for election in the Senate are in Repub territory
SEE YOU IN 2 MONTHS.
The President has the winning hand in these skirmishes. Anything the dysfunctional GOP thinks they can pass in the House won't make it through the Senate, if it isn't something the President will sign, and then it is the President's hand that must sign any legislation....
See you in 2 months.
Why do you think the president has the winning hand?
Because Steveo it is his hand that holds the pen which will sign any legislation...even when the signature is by autopen.
BTW Do you mean like the GOP thought Sherrod Brown's seat was up for grabs?
No no no Jean. I'm talking like seriously in play seats- like the one in Louisiana
Well the Koch brothers and your teapitty cohorts seemed to think they could throw tons of cash at an election and unseat Sherrod Brown, and that his seat was in play...sensible voters proved them wrong. Voters are smart and there are some things money can't buy.
Ohio may be at times a slightly right-leaning state. Trust me, Louisiana and Ohio are very different. Louisiana is "a ruby red state" (Donna Brazile)
A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration’s birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza. “Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion,” Zatkoff wrote.
A BILLIONAIRE GETTING THE ATTENTION OF A JUDGE? SAY IT AIN'T SO.
I have a strong feeling this will go down to defeat as it works its way up through the courts. An employee's health care benefit is a part of their wages, and the premium for their insurance is withheld from their pay and is shown on their pay stub...in other words the benefit does not belong to the employer, it belongs to the employee who should be able to decide how they wish to spend their pay.
So now, circumcision must be mandated to all employees children? Never read the word Viagara in the bible but, I'll bet this employer isn't complaining about that being covered. Does he require that everyone working for him follow his idea of religion to be hired? EMPLOYEES BEWARE – sounds Talibanian to me.
There may even be a new Speaker of the House after the next vote.
the real game is raising the debt limit...a time when obama won't be able to duck swerve and jive the real problem...spending! Responsible legislators from both sides of the isle are going to spank the pseudo-presidet.
Like we did with with clinton...
I'm cutting my spending by 2% to accommodate the payroll tax increase. I don't think I'm the only one who will need to adjust their budgets. My guess is that the reduction in spending from working class Americans will likely slow the economy.
This is just the calm before the storm. We still have the debt ceiling and spending cuts to deal with! What ever happened to the idea of PUBLIC SERVANTS? Problem is we have too many polticians and not enough statesmen! At least in Taiwan, they actually fist fight and get it over with!
I would start with eliminating earmarks. That would decrease spending by 50 billion in the next ten years. Unfortunately, it will never happen. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats, love their pet projects. I suspect the battle has yet to begin.
You got that right, Caramon. The battle is just getting started.
I think it would depend for what the earmark is to be used. Some are worthwhile and are needed. I would think long and hard before a cent was allocated to Rep. Izza's district... that man is a piece of work. People on the east coast suffering and he will vote NO on providing help, but he always has his hand out for fire and earthquake damage assistance..
So, your solution is to eliminate earmarks for representatives that you do not like, all Republicans I am guessing. I have a better idea. Let them eliminate these instead. Please note that it doesn't mention whether they are Democrat or Republican.
The process uncovered nearly 50 members who helped direct millions of dollars in earmarks to projects that either held the potential to enhance the surroundings of a lawmaker's own property, or aided entities connected to their immediate family.
Yikes, moderated again. I will try this.
So, your solution is to eliminate earmarks for representatives that you do not like, all Republicans I am guessing. I have a better idea. Let them eliminate these instead. Please note that it doesn't mention whether they are Democrat or Republican. An article in the Washington Post found 50 representatives that have taken millions in federal funds to enhance areas very close to their home or benefit members of their family. Get rid of them.
Caramon I'm sure the people in New York and New Jersey who are suffering through the affects of Hurricane Sandy whether they are Republican or Democrat expect federal FEMA help just as much as the people in Zenia, Ohio expected help from their tornado, or the people of a California earthquake expects the government to help...so for Bonehead, and people like Issa to be dragging their feet, or saying they will vote NO is not what America is about.
And the last I checked Hurricane Sandy had nothing to do with earmarks....Oh right in the case of McCain he doesn't call all that cash he hauls home to his district earmarks....in his case it is just called bringing home the bacon. Like the $10 million for the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona.
And what about that $450 million Joint Strike Fighter Engine the military doesn't even want, but that is to be built in Dayton, and Cincinnati, Ohio courtesy John Boehner's nifty little earmarks for G.E. and Rolls Royce in those two cities....not to mention the unwanted military tanks built in Lima.
Remember to take your own advice... and vote Bonehead out the next time you go to the polls.
HEY, I HATE EARMARKS TOO BUT COME ON, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO PUT THE BILL TO A VOTE WHEN THOSE EARMARKS WERE ALREADY REMOVED IN THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BILL!
THE GOVERNORS OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY DID EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK ASKING FOR HELP. WAITED LONGER THAN MOST FOR MONEY THE PEOPLE DESPERATELY NEEDED. THIS WAS AN UTTER DISGRACE AND THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERS ARE RESPONSIBLE. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES.
Jean, December, are we talking about the same thing? I was referring to earmarks in the budget used to benefit the representatives personally. How did we get to hurricane relief. One example given by the article was in Michigan. Jean, I am certain if you try, you will find Democrats just as guilty as John McCain. Is there absolutely nothing Democrats do that bother you?
Basically the complaint in the House about the Hurricane Sandy Relief Legislation was according to some that there was earmarks for other things in the bill such as something to do with fishing in Alaska....and Darrell Issa of California was one those Congressmen kicking up the greatest fuss about the notion of earmarks.
However, it seems Issa is one of those legislators whose $1 million earmarks may have benefited his own California real estate empire i.e The Vista Medical Center.
$1 million earmarks may have benefited his own California real estate empire. I agree they should be gone. You understand Jean that I believe the earmarks that benefit representatives personally should be eliminated. That includes Republicans as well as Democrats. Can you be as impartial? I also noticed you have returned to hurricane relief. I am still talking about the earmarks in the budget not emergency relief.
COME ON, LET'S PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS DISASTER RELIEF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, SO NOW WE COMPLAIN ABOUT EARMARKS? DID THEY FORGET THERE WERE EARMARKS IN THE FISCAL CLIFF DEAL??? WHAT MAKES THAT ANY DIFFERENT OR MORE IMPORTANT?
IT IS SIMPLY INEXCUSABLE. IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE EARMARKS THEN ISSUE LEGISLATION TO REMOVE IT. OTHERWISE WE ARE JUST KIDDING OURSELVES.
December, I was never talking about disaster relief. My initial statement was in response to Steveo and we were both talking about the budget and the revenue increases that just passed. I never once said anything about earmarks in disaster relief.
It depends on how the earmark is to be used. This is basically a way for a Senator or Representative to bring back to their state or district funds which members of the state have paid in federal taxes to the government. Where I have a problem is when it directly and financially benefits that Senator or Representative, or if it is a total boondoggle like building unwanted military arms the military says it doesn't need.
Agreed
Anyone who knows Washington knows that in 2 months something will get thrown together and they will pass it off yet again. If some of the Liberal Democrats didn't vote for this deal, then god knows they ain't cutting spending
good job GOP...now on to the sequester and debt ceiling game. The GOP and responsible deems are going to tie obama's hands on spending as they did with clinton back in 1994, this will set a real economic recovery in motion. Time for the adults to take over. Good to hear Boehner telling reid where to put it today... fiscal conservatives have had it with these marxist...thank God!
Obama Signs 'Fiscal Cliff' Bill With Autopen
So... Let me understand this...
america is broke. NOT just broke; but 16 TRILLION in debt.
That's $140,000 per household of national debt.
So OBAMA fly's back from "HIS" Hawaii golf vacation
at a cost of $4,000,000 to working TAX PAYERS who still have a job.
"HE" calls Joe Biden down the road at the VP residence and tells him
to call his old buddies in the Senate and work out a deal that gives large
tax breaks to BIG HOLLYWOOD; and taxes everyone else; especially
"the rich"
Then fly's back to Hawaii at a cost of another $4,000,000 paid for by
working TAX PAYERS who still have a job; and signs the bill by "AutoPen"
This guy is awesome !!!
Thomas Jefferson was the first President to use an autopen back in 1804...so what is your point?
You do understand that roughly half of that $16 Trillion is due to G. W. Bush's borrowed debt and interest thereon for two wars, and gross mismanagement of not planning enough income revenue to pay for his folly.
wrong...lets just speak about obummer and the 9 trillion he racked up in just four years....bush is gone....get serious.
Jean, I looked up a number of resources including Reuters. Not one substantiated your statement that the 2 wars costs 8 Trillion. However, I am certain you will find one. As you have mentioned many times before, the President cannot spend the money. That is the job of Congress. Apparently you feel they have no responsibility whatsoever. Plus, the debt continues to rise. You cannot solve the debt problem by doing more of the same spending habits without planning income revenue.
“Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration-tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits between 2009-2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half-nearly $10 trillion –of the $20 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.” – source: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Well the GOP seems to have a Tinkerbell – fairy dust view of economics they seem to think you can create debt and then not provide the revenue to pay for it. You do know that the tax cuts and the tax rebate refunds also added to the national deficit by borrowing. If you spend and don't increase revenue that not only causes the debt, but the interest on that debt is another added expense.
jeans source...the carter center...a left left wing nut house...carter the guy who's grandson posted the 47% video on Romney...a real class act and a total failure as governor and president...give me a brake. jean would be funny if her post were not soooo stupid and shallow.
deficits between 2009-2019? Okay, I may be a little forgetful. Isn't this 2013, 6 years shy of 2019. Your basing your 8 trillion on an estimation for the next 6 years. You also forgot to mention that the Democrat in Congress raised spending on Bush's original budget by 600 billion, 400 billion after he left office (signed by President Obama). But I am certain that has nothing to do with the current and future deficit.
Caramon: The deficit clock is a projection of what will be owed according to the Congressional Budget Office based on a 10 year projection into the future of the current deficit against GDP. This can be checked at the Congressional Budget Office website-under the title.
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022
CBO's Current-Law Baseline
CBO projects a $1.1 trillion federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 if current laws remain unchanged. Measured as a share of the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP), that shortfall of 7.0 percent is nearly 2 percentage points below the deficit recorded in 2011, but still higher than any deficit between 1947 and 2008. Over the next few years, projected deficits in CBO's baseline decline markedly, dropping to under $200 billion and averaging 1.5 percent of GDP over the 2013–2022 period.
Plus: jerry doesn't know beans where does he think the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities goes to for figures it is the Congressional Budget Office....it is certainly not the pattootie of pixie dust where jerry gathers his misinformation.
Robert Greenstein is founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a Washington, DC think tank that focuses on federal and state fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. According to his CBPP bio, Greenstein is "an expert on the federal budget and in particular, the impact of tax and budget proposals on low-income people".
As with any non-profit organization they have to work within some pretty stringent guidelines.
I too am waiting for the moderator.
So, how did Greenstein separate the expense of the wars versus other expenses which added to the total budget for 2009 and past budgets. This includes the additional 400 billion added to the 2009 budget after President Bush left office.
Let's be honest, Bush easn't a fiscal spender, but Obama is twice as bad, looking at deficit numbers,
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS, YOU WILL DISCOVER MOST OF THEM ARE STILL FROM BUSH POLICIES. THE GROWTH OF SPENDING IS AT ITS LOWEST DURING OBAMA'S TERM.
EITHER YOU ACCUSE OBAMA OF DOING NOTHING OR BLOWING UP THE DEFICIT. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
The largest growth in spending was the 2009 budget resolution. Those who want to blame Bush entirely attribute this entire budget to him. However, after Bush submitted the budget, the Congress added 200 billion more in spending while Bush was still in office and then an additional 400 billion after he left office. President Obama signed the Omibus bill on March 11, 2009.
I am not saying that George Bush isn't responsible for many of the issues concerning the deficit. However, President Obama also played a role by voting yes on the budget increases then signing the additions. I think the basic problem I have is that, despite the complaints Democrats have about Bush's excess spending, why do they continue the same spending. It seems to me that if Democrats believed that George Bush spent too much, then they would reduce the spending. Growth in spending is at its lowest level only because it is compared to the 2009 budget resolution including the additions made after Bush left office.
HE HAD ONE VOTE OUT OF THE MANY IN CONGRESS, OF COURSE HE SHARES A RESPONSIBILITY AND IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME BUSH ENTIRELY FOR THE MESS WHEN CONGRESS APPROVED IT. THERE IN LIES THE RUB. NOW THAT OBAMA IS PRESIDENT, DOES THAT MEAN THE RULES SUDDENLY CHANGED? SEEMS VERY UNREASONABLE TO ME.
WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT IF DEMOCRATS WANTED TO CONTROL SPENDING (OH THE IRONY) THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT DURING THE BUSH YEARS, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE REPUBLICANS FAILED AS WELL, OR RATHER THEY SAID NOTHING. THEY SURE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM NOW! I WONDER WHY? I AM ALL FOR WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS PROBLEM, WE JUST ALL NEED TO DROP THE HYPOCRISY AND NOT BE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH. THAT TRUTH IS, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT, IN THE END CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET AND WE HAVE LET THEM ALL SLIDE OFF INTO PARTISANSHIP BECAUSE WE OURSELVES CANNOT HELP BEING PARTISAN. ALL I ASK IS FOR SOME OBJECTIVITY AND TO LOOK HARDER AT THE NUMBERS BEFORE ASSIGNING BLAME ON ANYONE.
Watch out December! You are sounding reasonable! Good on ya!
On this we totally agree. Congress is a reflection of the populace. Look at the comments on this sight. How many blame either President Bush or President Obama. There is too much wasted time on blame and politics, not enough time on solving the issues.
I am going to stop reacting to the nonsense, much to the detriment of my own personal amusement. Sometimes you have to give away the things you like to promote progress. Call it my New Year's resolution, so trust it as far as such things go. 🙂
@Caramon,
You just spoke the honest truth here, Caramon!
so trust it as far as such things go,
So is that for one or two weeks? Anyway, the point for me is, at least you credit both sides when due and are critical of both sides when due. You're right though! Nobody gets all they want when negotiating!
The fact is Caramon, when Bush left office in January 2009 he left the 2009 budget which wouldn't end until October 1, 2009, with enough remaining cash to only operate for 3 months. He came into office in 2000 spent off the Clinton surplus, cut taxes and revenue, drained the treasury through tax rebates checks, ran two wars and a drug benefit off the books (kick the can style) and left the next incoming president with a gigantic mess, and 3 months of cash....which was 6 months short of paying for the rest of the budget year. Try getting to the heart of the facts!
And you wont put away the hammer and tongs will you jean
Thanks for the effort December
jean, I believe you were the one who said the President does not need to sign the budget. It simply amazes me that Bush had complete control over spending and Congress had none. And you continue to forget that some of the 2009 budget was passed after Bush left office.
That's why its a negotiation. Now granted, there are times (2009-2010 for Democrats and 2003-2006 for Repubs) when people don't have to negotiate, but most of the time everyone does. Negotiation is a good thing. If you don't like negotiation, try living in a country where there is no debate- you do what you are told or else and you don't question it- like North Korea.
Thanks for all of your efforts that you just have place in this. Quite interesting info. ?°There?ˉs folks ??ud stand on their heads and then say the fault was i?ˉ their boots.?± by George Eliot.
http://www.talktothehand.ch/fencein/?q=node/10062 http://www.talktothehand.ch/fencein/?q=node/10062