| SamuelRSmith said: Why doesn't the Dem controlled Senate propose a budget (you know, like they're supposed to) that actually cuts stuff that the Dems would want to cut? You know, like some forms of military spending? Oh, yeah, that's why: because, despite all their rhetoric, Dems like military spending as much as the GOP. |
The President proposes a budget, the House then takes up the budget. If the party in opposition doesn't like the budget, they will either work with the President or the Senate before any voting takes place to come up with a compromise budget. In some cases, the House will vote for a budget and the Senate will vote for their own, then work in conference to come up with a compromise.
Democrats want some military spending cuts, but what they want more, which the Republican's are opposed to, are tax increases on the wealthiest 2% of American's (a tax increase to 1999 levels for anyone individually making $250,000 or more). Republican's on the otherhand want to cut federal assistance programs. The fact of the matter is, that the compromise for the 2012 budget that both the House and Senate voted for would cut funding equally to the military and assistance programs if the Super Commitee couldn't come up with a compromise solution of cuts for the 2012 budget. So what you have right now are the Republicans in the House voting to sequester the 2012 budget rule because they didn't get their way 100%. They won't allow any tax increases no matter how much sense and how much of a benefit they will have on the economy.
You might recall that last Summer, in order to get Republican approval for his Budget, Obama actually offer to cut MORE in assistance programs than what Republican's had proposed in their own budget, just so he could get the tax rates rolled back to 1999 levels on the top 2%. Republican's would have been given a significant reduction in medicare/welfare spending had they taken that deal, but they threw it away.
Republican's believe that defeat at all cost is a win, but the reality is that for the majority of the country, those in the center and to the left, they see what the Republican's are doing as ridiculously crazy. Rather than compromise for what's best for the country, they're doing what politically best for themselves, and in the end making it more difficult to fix the situation with the economy.
Michigan was the first State in the country to be hit by the recession, it actually started in 2000/2001 in Michigan. The last two years of John Engler's administration. For four years under a Democratic governor, Michigan went through budget, spending, and cuts to the size of government. Lucrative tax cuts were given to businesses to either come to Michigan or stay in Michigan and do business. Several movies in fact were made in Michigan during the time because of those tax cuts. At no time though, did employment increase. The Republican administration under Rick Snyder reported that in 2007, Michigan's recession had ended. For four more years there was no significant increase in hiring.
What happened? The US Chamber of Commerce convinced businesses not to hire in the state, so as to damage the credibility of the Granholm administration and Democrats, which they were successful in doing. Despite the fact that during the entire time a Democratic governor was in control, and the Dems controlled the Senate or House (can't remember which chamber), they compromised, cut spending, and reduced the size of the government, never once raising taxes, never once not providing services, nor ever having a deficit or requiring fuzzy accounting as the Republican's did in 2001 and 2002.
What did Republican's do almost immediately once they got power, raised taxes.
