Lawmakers unveil $1.1 trillion spending bill

Comments (28)
Burns0011 wrote:

… And they think this will PASS?

Hardly.

Jan 13, 2014 11:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Republicans talk about cutting spending, but again we are seeing what they do in practice: another $45 billion wasted on defence spending, and another $85 billion thrown into that black-hole of a war they created in Afghanistan. Yet the FoxBots endlessly drone on about Obama being all spend, spend, spend. They are such hypocrites.

As for this bill, it should fail. As usual, Obama has no balls and has given far too much to Republicans, based on the false premise that their ideologically based opinions have equal merit to economically based opinions. It should be about what is good for the USA, not about sharing out political points.

Jan 14, 2014 1:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Republicans talk about cutting spending, but again we are seeing what they do in practice: another $45 billion wasted on defence spending, and another $85 billion thrown into that black-hole of a war they created in Afghanistan. Yet the FoxBots endlessly drone on about Obama being all spend, spend, spend. They are such hypocrites.

As for this bill, it should fail. As usual, Obama has no balls and has given far too much to Republicans, based on the false premise that their ideologically based opinions have equal merit to economically based opinions. It should be about what is good for the USA, not about sharing out political points.

Jan 14, 2014 1:46am EST  --  Report as abuse

In short let’s kick the can again.

Jan 14, 2014 3:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
nottosmart wrote:

One more chance for Rubio to vote NO.

Jan 14, 2014 5:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
rb82414 wrote:

Why don’t they take that 1.1 trillion and pay 1.1 trillion of the debt off. This is monopoly money anyway.

Jan 14, 2014 5:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
THEDRWES wrote:

People!!!! Why can’t we understand that the best budget cut for our country is to enforce everyone in office to get paid minimum wage. They would have health care plans that mirror the healthcare that people with minimum wage jobs.
The offices should be considered as a place for people who feel it is their duty, and not as a role in a party. It is the fault of the people for letting this two party shenanigans carry on. We do not need parties, we have the technology, and the means to fix our country.
First off we should enforce voting, and make it a day where companies cannot operate. We should make the party system illegal. No member of our government can be affiliated with any group with invested interests outside their role in politics.
Our Government should be responsible for its actions. If we are out of money, we should not spend, or borrow from other and put ourselves in debt. Everyone knows that it is universally stupid to spend outside your needs.
What do we need our military doing outside our country? We are so invested outside of our country that we don’t have enough taxes to support ourselves. Now we are so depended on other countries, that we cannot pull our military without making wars. There is a point when we should say, “no, we cannot help you, we cannot afford it, ask another country for help.”
We don’t need a government of handouts as well. There are charities and family for that. If you have socially cut ties with your family or any other groups that could help, then it is your fault. The Government should only be here to police, and protect from foreign powers. Then we will have a strong government, and have less companies control us with their interest at heart.

Jan 14, 2014 7:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
jfoy69 wrote:

Its time to legalize marijuana!!! This country will continue to stay in debt if not. I would rather be on the road with someone smoking marijuana than some drunk. I think that alcohol should be banned it causes more danger like liver failure and other organ damage, fights, fatal auto accidents etc.

Jan 14, 2014 7:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

$85.2 BILLION for Afghanistan? For ONE year? Why? The Afghan government and people want us out, the US citizens want us out, we have spent billions already in this corrupt country, lost too many lives, have too many wounded. Why throw away more tax dollars and borrowed money in one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth?

Only $6+ billion is needed to continue unemployment benefits for our own people and this US government wants over ten times that amount spent on Afghanistan. Where are the priorities? When will we have a government that puts our country and our people first and not last?

We have the Patriot Act but very few real patriots in our own government!!!!!

Jan 14, 2014 7:26am EST  --  Report as abuse

I’m sorry. Did I miss the part of the article that tells how much more debt this adds to the $17 trillion that the US is already in the hole?

It’s time to start over. Can we replace ever last member of Congress for the good of the country?

Jan 14, 2014 7:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

A public referendum vote for:
1. Term limits for congressmen
2. Campaign finance reform

Without these two things, nothing will ever really change.

Jan 14, 2014 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
regan4000 wrote:

Wow, the Republicans are so backwards. They’re AGAINST higher efficiency light bulbs? How does that even begin to make sense?

Jan 14, 2014 10:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

They are supporting the individual right to not make sense, which is why so many people who don’t make sense support them.

You know… like whining about Obama wanting $6.5 billion to extend benefits but saying nothing about the GOP wanting to increase spending by $100 billion+ for defence and the Afghanistan war.

it doesn’t even begin to make sense, but they do it anyway.

Jan 14, 2014 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:

Not sure what the no funding thing on law enforcement banning efforts of incandescent bulbs will do or not to do keep these things from being fully banned, but I am all for that small measure. The idea of forcing someone of limited resources to purchase a $10 lightbulb is just beyond mean. Even someone of decent means really should not have to be forced to buy a $10 lightbulb. I’m all for energy responsbility, and I definitely do my part, but overpriced lightbulbs is just kind of silly. Not to mention how garish the lighting is that comes from them.

Jan 14, 2014 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
archiebird wrote:

Of the $1.1 Trillion passed almost half (over $500 B) goes to the military to continue our failed wars and military operations with bases in over 100 countries around the world. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Jan 14, 2014 10:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
archiebird wrote:

yay! US military spending!

Jan 14, 2014 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

Children – Your partisan politics are showing again… Let’s take some satisfaction that Congress has begun to learn how to do business together. This spending plan is seriously flawed in many ways, it underfunds critical infrastructure investment and increases the national debt – again – but it is a compromise and that’s how govt works. No one gets everything they want – ever – so let’s build on this in a positive manner and stop the whining…

Jan 14, 2014 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Proof positive they never learn. Vote the bums out, all of them.

Jan 14, 2014 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

QuidProQuo: The incandescent light bulb is like a SUV for the poor. They can more easily afford the bulb or the SUV, but the electricity or gasoline used by these products is much higher and thus costs the individual more over time than had they purchased a $10 or fuel efficient vehicle and spent less of electricity or energy. Of course, you probably knew that and are in fact attempting to continue the increase in poverty by saddleing the poor with high energy bills. Don’t worry though, the poor don’t read this site.

Jan 14, 2014 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

From the article.

“As with any compromise, not everyone will like everything in this bill, but in this divided government a critical bill such as this simply cannot reflect the wants of only one party,” Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky said in a statement.

No, it is not only in “this divided government” and not only for “a critical bill” but the fact is that NO government should ever reflect the wants of ANY one party especially a REPRESENTATIVE form of government such as ours. This only leads to even more division.
Traditionally, the Senate has been the one part of our government where such compromise was possible BECAUSE of cloture not in spite of it.
The idea that by simple right of majority one party may disenfranchise all dissent is not only vile but is counter productive.
It seems that the very same people who advocate reaching across borders to find some sort of common ground with which to resolve issues with nations that espouse terrorism, arms proliferation, the destruction of other nations foam at the mouth with the idea that such ‘détente’ could/should occur with their domestic political adversaries.

Now, really, who is the ideologue?

Jan 14, 2014 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

An incandescent bulb lasts about a thousand hours. A compact flourescent about 10,000 hours and a LED bulb about a 100,000 hours. simply on the basis of life time an LED bulb that costs $10 is a good deal because you would have to buy 100 incandescent bulbs to get the same life. The incandescent bulbs would have to be 10 cents a piece to be equivolent in cost. There is also energy savings as the LED bulb uses way less energy per hour than incandescent and the compact florescent somewhat less than the incandescent. See http://www.ehow.com/facts_5794793_life-expectancy-light-bulbs.html .

It’s what I said earlier. By encouraging poor people to use incandescent lights and drive SUVs and Pick-ups, you assure that they will remain at a economic disadvantage. They will remain poor if they follow the instructions of the Tea Party and the GOP.

The instructions from me are that they learn to learn and educate themselves, because their ignorance makes them susceptible to people who misinform them, and whose intent is to keep them ignorant and poor.

Jan 14, 2014 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse

Hey this is start, are there alot of things I do not like in this bill, of course, but the government has to run and be funded.

Jan 14, 2014 11:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@regan4000,

“Wow, the Republicans are so backwards. They’re AGAINST higher efficiency light bulbs? How does that even begin to make sense?”

Frankly, any true prog-lib should be against mandating something that will take up a greater percentage of the working poor budget without some form of government subsidy.

Of course, this is not why some are against these new light bulbs but I’ll let you figure it out.

Jan 14, 2014 11:49am EST  --  Report as abuse

@cbj, can you even read? As many have already pointed out, rightly and provided links, LED or CFL light bulbs SAVE MONEY OVER TIME. And it not even close.

Jan 14, 2014 12:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
alowl wrote:

Of course! Military bases and retirees live in red states. They’re not going to cut their piece of the pie.

Jan 14, 2014 1:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@brotherkenny4,

“It’s what I said earlier. By encouraging poor people to use incandescent lights and drive SUVs and Pick-ups, you assure that they will remain at a economic disadvantage.”

We must have a significant difference of opinion of what qualifies as poor.
What poor people do you know driving around in ANY vehicle let alone an SUV?

@USAPragmatist2 wrote:

“@cbj, can you even read? As many have already pointed out, rightly and provided links, LED or CFL light bulbs SAVE MONEY OVER TIME. And it not even close.”

Another person who must have a skewed idea of what poor people spend money on.
If poor people had the funds to actually do things ‘long term’ I would agree. But do you really think that if they could spend $10.00 today to save $8.00 in ten years there would be so many ‘pay day loan’ outlets on the other side of the tracks?
The poor are at multiple disadvantages.
Those poor that work make less money, live in areas with fewer opportunities of procuring fresh wholesome foods at reasonable cost, those that may be able to qualify for loans are usually subjected to punishing rates etc.
You are truly OUT OF TOUCH.

Jan 14, 2014 1:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

@alowl wrote:

“Of course! Military bases and retirees live in red states. They’re not going to cut their piece of the pie.”

Um, California (’bout as Blue as you can get) has the most military bases of any state.
Florida (also Blue) does pretty well with all the Navy and Air Force bases.
Colorado (oddly Blue) does pretty well with the Air Force.
Nevada (do I really have to explain how much land is given over to military use?
The Navy bases in Virginia? (Yes Virginia IS Blue)

Really?

Jan 14, 2014 2:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bhartn wrote:

All of you can bash defense (not spelled “defence”)spending all you want. If you don’t have a military to protect our freedom and protect our rights then we’ll understand what it is like to live in North Korea. We might even get Dennis Rodman to be our dictator president.

We do need to cut the foreign bribes and take care of our own people. Yes, you can have your welfare but welcome to the public works system. Because nothing is free–you will work for your “entitlements”

Jan 15, 2014 6:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.