Obama Threatens to Veto House GOP Bill As Lawmakers Predict Shutdown (updated)

[ProSense]

Obama Threatens to Veto House GOP Bill As Lawmakers Predict Shutdown

Democrats Assail GOP's 'Ideological' Agenda; Republicans Say Numbers Still Being Negotiated

By HUMA KHAN, JONATHAN KARL and MICHAEL S. JAMES

President Obama is threatening to veto a temporary Republican budget measure that would ensure the troops are paid through September and and keep the government running for another week, but would not resolve the bitter standoff between Democrats and Republicans.

"This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avert a disruptive federal government shutdown that would put the nation's economic recovery in jeopardy," the White House said in a statement.

The president had said earlier this week he would not vote for the temporary extension, which includes $12 billion in spending cuts, unless there were hints of a progress in negotiations on a final bill.

Democrats charge that the bill is merely a political cover.

"This is a very cynical ploy to use our troops to try to impose the Republican agenda through the budget process," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

more

Updated to add this from Steve Benen:

<...>

In this transparent stunt, Republicans have begun calling this their "troop funding bill." It has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer -- the GOP has designed this to fail, so they can (a) argue Dems are to blame for the Republicans' shutdown; and (b) accuse Dems of not supporting the troops.

One would have to be exceedingly dumb to fall for this, but GOP leaders are willing to give it a shot anyway.

The White House isn't impressed, and a short while ago, issued a statement of administration policy vowing a veto.

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.

For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation's economic recovery in jeopardy. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly Government shutdown. It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President's desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.

If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.

It's not even clear what GOP officials would expect to do with another week anyway. There's a deal on the table, and Democrats have already agreed to all kinds of concessions. Hell, President Obama is now offering more budget cuts that Boehner originally asked for when the process started.

They don't need a week; they need to be grown up enough to do their duty.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Obama is finally realizing that compromising with these people is pointless

This is why we must continue to press this Administration to move to the left and give the middle finger to the rethugs. Our criticism seems to have had an effect :)

[nmbluesky]

2. I wonder what did Obama do to Speaker Bone

crying?

[ClarkUSA]

5. Give me a break. He's been saying the same thing for weeks now. I posted an OP awhile back about it

The WH has been saying no to the Teabagger House since Day One. Stop taking baseless credit for something you have no part of.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. We must continue to nudge him to the left and stop the compromise with the Republicans

And we still have more work to do:

- Reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy
- End indefinite detention @ Gitmo
- Bring all troops home froom Iraq and Afghanistan
- Stop giving out deepwater oil drilling permits
- Stop appointing banksters to administration positions

We have much more work to do, Clark USA. Won't you join us? :hi:

[ProSense]

7. By all means,

ignore the President's budgets and Congress' role.

Any plans to "nudge" Congress to "the left"?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. An excellent start to burying the Bush Tax cuts. However, they're not gone yet.

Still more to do! Please join us, ProSense :hi:

[ProSense]

11. "Please join us"

In what: knee jerk reaction to BS media stories?

Speculating that he's going to cave because he's a weak sellout and not a Democrat?

Calling the President a "hypocrite," "liar," "Republican," "lying sack of shit" or similar?

Who is us?

:hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Reaction to BS media stories? No...I'm talking about....

- Reversing the tax cuts for the wealthy
- End indefinite detention @ Gitmo
- Bring all troops home froom Iraq and Afghanistan
- Stop giving out deepwater oil drilling permits
- Stop appointing banksters to administration positions
- Cutting the defense budget by half at least.
- Stop appointing non-taxpaying CEO's to important positions.


These aren't media stories. These are policies that need to be stopped and reversed. These are the issues I'm referring do. There is MUCH more work that needs to be done. :hi:

[ProSense]

14. .

repeat.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. The President's outlined budget plan is actually pretty good....

Especially with regard to the tax cuts for the wealthy and US companies.

This is excellent news! However, there's still more to do!

[ClarkUSA]

17. Actually, under Pres. Obama, corporate taxes were raised to their highest level ever just this month

In fact, The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

You have "MUCH more work to do" on getting your rhetoric to be fact-based.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Your framing is false.

<< - Reversing the tax cuts for the wealth
- End indefinite detention @ Gitmo >>

Do "MUCH more work" in electing Democrats to Congress, then.

<< - Bring all troops home froom Iraq and Afghanistan >>

Um, he is. On schedule, too. But you keep ignoring that and the existence and function of Congress.

<< - Stop giving out deepwater oil drilling permits >>

Quote from credible sources.

<< - Stop appointing banksters to administration positions >>

Who are you referring to? Would you prefer Pres. Obama appoint bloggers who don't know WTF they're talking about?

<< - Cutting the defense budget by half at least. >>

What would you cut and why? Be specific. Once more, you're ignoring the fact that under Pres. Obama, this Pentagon has been forced to cut more off its budget than any other in decades.

<< - Stop appointing non-taxpaying CEO's to important positions. >>

WTF? Prove it. All CEOs pay taxes.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Here...

Troops Abroad- I apologize for the confusion. I'm referring to complete pullout of troops from both Afghanistan in Iraq immediately. Not a phased withdrawal that will even still leave some troops. I'm talking about a withdrawal of all forces immediately. In Afghanistan, there are still no plans for a COMPLETE troop pullout yet. In Iraq, the US could still keep troops there if the Iraqi government asks.

Deep water drilling - US clears more deepwater oil drilling in Gulf - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-clears-more-deepwater-oil-apf-1644611204.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

Stop appointing banksters to administration positions - Bill Daley was appointed Obama Chief of Staff. Before he was appointed several months ago, he served o the executive committee of JP Morgan Chase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Daley

Cutting the defense budget - What would I cut? I would cut Operations and maintenance by half ($141 million reduction). I would also cut weapons procurement by $70 billion. I would also cut research and development by $40 billion. I would also but the military personnel budget by $50 billion. This will still leave us with the largest defense budget in the world by far. The current defense budget is at a record. There has been no reduction under Obama, but an increase.

Stop appointing non-taxpaying CEO's to important positions - Sorry for the confusion. I was referring the companies that don't pay taxes, specifically Jeffrey Immelt who's company paid zero taxes for last year. He sits on Obama council for Jobs and Competitiveness and he's the CEO for GE. http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/ge-8217s-scandalous-tax-breaks-are-rooted-in-politics/12187.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Pres. Obama doesn't have a magic wand. Once again, you're ignoring the role of Congress.

<< I'm talking about a withdrawal of all forces immediately. >>

Why? We still have forces in Korea, Germany, and Japan. These are all countries we defeated in bitterly fought wars. They are now some of our strongest allies.

<< US clears more deepwater oil drilling in Gulf >>

2 permits in 2.5 years? lol! The Obama administration has put so many regulations on drilling that there's little certainty that this license will ever be followed through. You do know that there are thousands of licenses that are bought up and never used due to the onerous process of approval, right?

<< Stop appointing banksters to administration positions >>

Why? Daley has extensive experience in politics and is perfectly suited to be Chief of Staff.

<< Cutting the defense budget - What would I cut? I would cut Operations and maintenance by half ($141 million reduction). I would also cut weapons procurement by $70 billion. I would also cut research and development by $40 billion.>>

This proposal would be DOA in the Teabagger House.

<< Stop appointing non-taxpaying CEO's to important positions - Sorry for the confusion. I was referring the companies that don't pay taxes, specifically Jeffrey Immelt who's company paid zero taxes for last year. He sits on Obama council for Jobs and Competitiveness and he's the CEO for GE.>>

Why? 2/3's of all companies pay zero income tax. Nothing GE did was illegal. Why punish the CEO? When are you going to start "nudging" Congress to close the tax loopholes, Cali_Democrat? President Obama wants them closed, yet the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats in red states block WH efforts every time a vote comes up.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. I never said Obama possesses a magic wand, but he is the President and has more power than you think

-Why a total withdrawal immediately? Because I'm completely opposed to both wars and most liberals agree with my position on total withdrawal immediately.

-You can laugh about the US government continuing to give deep water oil drilling permits. That's fine with me. However, the people in the gulf certainly weren't laughing about the BP deep water oil spill.

-Why should the Administration not appoint banksters to high positions? Do you really need to ask this?

- Cutting the defense budget may not get support from many Republicans, but most Americans want to. Continue to press and fight for cuts will be effective IMO...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41993528/ns/politics-more_politics/

- You don't care that the CEO of a company that paid ZERO taxes is sitting on Obama's jobs and competitiveness council?

[ClarkUSA]

22. That's not true. Why do you never mention Congress' role in obstructing Pres. Obama's agenda?

<< -Why a total withdrawal immediately? Because I'm completely opposed to both wars and most liberals agree with my position on total withdrawal immediately. >>

Prove it. Is that your sole reasoning? For example, I can prove that most liberals approve of the job this President is doing according to every Gallup poll taken since Day One in office but it doesn't seem to stop certain liberals in the minority opinion from attacking Pres. Obama non-stop.

Oh, and you didn't answer two of my questions. Instead you turned them onto me:

<< -Why should the Administration not appoint banksters to high positions? Do you really need to ask this?
ou don't care that the CEO of a company that paid ZERO taxes is sitting on Obama's jobs and competitiveness council? >>

<< -You can laugh about the US government continuing to give deep water oil drilling permits. That's fine with me. However, the people in the gulf certainly weren't laughing about the BP deep water oil spill. >>

So? Apples and oranges. Two permits that have zero approval are nothing that concerns me. They do not negate the thousands of rigs operating in the Gulf right now and doesn't change the fact that there are thousands more unused permits that oil companies have no intention of jumping through regulatory hoops for.

<< - Cutting the defense budget may not get support from many Republicans, but most Americans want to. Continue to press and fight for cuts will be effective IMO >>

I repeat (and I'm sure you will keep ignoring this fact): Pres. Obama has already cut the defense budget more than any president in decades. He would continue to do so but the Teabagger House will shoot him down everytime until you "nudge" them "to the left". Get to it!! :hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Sure...

- Prove that liberals are opposed to the war in Afghanistan? Only 19 percent of Democratic respondents and half of Republicans surveyed saying the war continues to be worth fighting. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/newsworldnation/912465-227/u.s.-public-wants-end-to-afghan-war.html

- Why should the Administration not appoint banksters to high positions within the Administration? Because the banksters will be able to more easily influence policy. This is the same thing for Jefferey Imment on the Jobs and competitiveness council. They are more able to influence policy when they are appointed to important positions within the US Administration.

- You're entitled to your opinion about deep water permits. However, I feel that two deeep water oil permits is two too many. All it took was one oil well for the BP oil spill disaster.

--"Obama has already cut the defense budget more than any president in decades." What are you talking about? Obama is seeking the largest defense budget on record...http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/obama-budget-pentagon-idUSN0120383520100201

[ClarkUSA]

26. You're still not acknowledging Congress' role in blocking Pres. Obama's agenda.

<< - Prove that liberals are opposed to the war in Afghanistan? >>

No, now you're moving the goalpost. Reread my last post.

<< Why should the Administration not appoint banksters to high positions within the Administration? Because the banksters will be able to more easily influence policy. This is the same thing for Jefferey Imment on the Jobs and competitiveness council. They are more able to influence policy when they are appointed to important positions within the US Administration. >>

Point out a policy where Daley or Imment has had a negative "influence".

<< - You're entitled to your opinion about deep water permits. However, I feel that two deeep water oil permits is two too many. All it took was one oil well for the BP oil spill disaster. >>

Then you must want all drilling to stop everywhere in the world?

<< --"Obama has already cut the defense budget more than any president in decades." What are you talking about? >>

This is what I'm talking about:

(2009) Obama Calling for 10% Defense Budget Cuts - That's $55 Billion to You and Me:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/

No budget in 2010.

(Jan. 4, 2011) "Pentagon cuts to reflect Gates, White House tussle.... Gates had hoped to plow the savings back into the Pentagon budget for troop costs and weapons programs. But the White House recently has been pressing Gates to make even bigger cuts of about $150 billion, and then use the money to help narrow huge federal deficits." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/04/us-pentagon-cuts-idUSTRE7035VO20110104

(April 2011) "military spending would have $78 billion in cuts President Obama has proposed."
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html

When is the last time any President, much less a Democratic one, consistently cut the defense budget? Even the source you gave mentioned this:

"He said the fiscal 2011 budget proposal included cuts of "unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe," including annual spending of $2.5 billion for C-17 transport planes built by Boeing Co (BA.N) that has been added to the federal budget by Congress in each of the past four years.

"It's waste, pure and simple," Obama said.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a major shakeup of Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-35 fighter -- at $300 billion the largest weapons program in history.

Gates also said he would strongly recommend a veto of any moves by Congress to keep alive the C-17 program or a second engine for the F-35."

[Cali_Democrat]

27. OK...

1) How am I moving the goal posts regarding the war in Afghanistan? Didn't you want me to prove that many liberals were opposed to the war?

2) I said they will be more able to influence policy because they have been appointed to high positions, especially William Daley.

3) Do I want drilling to stop everywhere in the world? Yes. That should be the ultimate goal of people opposed to fossil fuel use, but that goal is a long way off obviously. However, the first step is to reduce our dependency. Obviously Obama doesn't have influence over the whole world, but reducing deep water drilling permits in the US would be an excellent start to achieving this end. You asked for a link and I provided it. Now you're moving the goal posts.

4) You should have read that Fox News article more carefully before you posted it. The defense budget article you linked to is from Dec 2009 and was nothing more than a proposal for the 2010. What was the actual budget for Fiscal Year 2010? Well I'll tell you... that defense budget ended up being the largest on record at about $680 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010

Obama's new defense proposal for this year's military budget would be THE LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNTIED STATES. You can't possibly dispute this fact. Since Obama's been in office, the defense budget has steadily risen. Your make believe world of defense cuts does not exist. That is a fantasy world. Aggregate defense spending has steadily increased.

Also, the other figure you include ($78 billion) take place over several years.

Prove to me that Obama's firs two defense budgets and the new proposed budget for 2011 have reduced defense spending. Prove it.

[phleshdef]

28. To #3, the Obama administration did dramatically reduce deep water drilling permits.

Of course thats get pointed out you, you say 2 permits are 2 too many, then you go back and say you want them to reduce deep water drilling, which is exactly what they did. Compare the number of permits that were being handed out prior to when Obama took office. The Obama administration had only granted a MINOR FRACTION of the permits per year than what was previously being handed out. You have no point here.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Whats wrong with not giving out any new deep water permits at all?

Especially after the BP oil spill fiasco. NONE should be given out IMO. Read my reply #6. I specifically said STOP giving out deep water drilling permits. Clark USA wanted proof that Obama gave out permits. I gave it to him. Now you guys are shifting the goal posts.

What about my other points?

[ClarkUSA]

31. What's wrong with giving out 2 over the past 2.5 years when thousands are already pending?

I didn't shift any goalposts. I have always thought your complaints are much ado about nothing.

To equate two permits with the BP oil spill is ridiculous.

[phleshdef]

33. No one said there would be anything wrong with it, did they?

You said you wanted it reduced while at the same time complaining about 2 permits. The fact was, it was reduced dramatically. Your arguments are full of contradictions and dishonest premises. I was just pointing one out.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. "You said you wanted it reduced"

No, I said "Stop giving out deepwater oil drilling permits"

See my reply #6.

[ClarkUSA]

35. You have yet to say what's wrong with giving out two token permits when thousands are pending.

Then again, you refuse to admit that a Congress exists in U.S. government as well...

[phleshdef]

37. dupe

[phleshdef]

38. Your exact quote: "but reducing deep water drilling permits in the US would be an excellent start"

By your definition, the Obama administration has put us off to an excellent start because they, in fact, have drastically reduced the number of deep water drilling permits.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Touché

:applause:

[ClarkUSA]

30. OK what? Why are you blaming Pres. Obama for Congress' successful obstruction of his agenda?

<< How am I moving the goal posts regarding the war in Afghanistan? Didn't you want me to prove that many liberals were opposed to the war? >>

No. In Reply 21, you said, "Why a total withdrawal immediately? Because I'm completely opposed to both wars and most liberals agree with my position on total withdrawal immediately. " I said prove it. You have yet to do so.

<< 2) I said they will be more able to influence policy because they have been appointed to high positions, especially William Daley. >>
So what? Daley comes from a Democratic dynasty and so far, you haven't provided one bit of evidence he's doing anything negative.

<<3) Obviously Obama doesn't have influence over the whole world, but reducing deep water drilling permits would be an excellent start to achieving this end.>>

Drop in the bucket approach? Big deal. Thousands of drilling permits are outstanding pending a very rigorous approval process and these two token permits are at the back of a very long line.

<< Prove to me that Obama's firs two defense budgets and the new proposed budget for 2011 have reduced defense spending. >>

I did, in my previous reply to you, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts. You even said yourself: "Also, the other figure you include ($78 billion) take place over several years."

All of your complaints are irrelevant to the fact that Congress is the branch of government that you should try to "nudge to the left" not the WH. But it's easier to pretend they don't exist, eh?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

12. You keep ignoring Congress' role. Why? Any plans to "nudge" Congress to "the left"?

Or is everything that Congress obstructs all Pres. Obama's fault? A Civics 101 course would prove all of your assumptions quite wrong.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Obama will let those tax cuts expire.

Those tax cuts are deader than disco.

For ALL Americans, your tax cut included.

[ClarkUSA]

10. You always ignore the role of Congress. Why? Those who learned Civics 101 don't make that mistake.

Join Obama supporters in understanding that Congress is a co-equal branch of government which serves as a check and balance on the executive branch, Cali_Democrat. :hi:

[phleshdef]

9. He hasn't really been compromising much with Republicans anyway.

In reality, a lot of his compromises have been with blue dog Democrats. Until the GOP took control of the House a few months ago, his only real compromise with Republicans was on the Bush tax cuts and that was a compromise that kept aid for the unemployed going at least. This shit they are trying to pull now goes way beyond any concessions he has ever made. He has never conceeded anything of the magnitude they are asking for.

[fugop]

3. Good!

I hope they stand to it. And I hope he gets out there and makes it clear that the bazillion riders the GOP is attaching to this thing have NOTHING to do with cutting the deficit or balancing the budget and everything to do with playing politics over women's choice and the environment. It's a complete crock to try and cram this through and pretend it's all about the troops.

They're screwing with the livelihoods of 800,000 people by threatening their jobs (and the thousands who depend on government services) because they want to shove more anti-choice and anti-clear-air crap down our throats. President Obama and the Dems better come out breathing fire over this immediately and relentlessly!

[Inuca]

4. He wont' have to

because it won't get through the Senate, Reid is WAY less than enthused.

[Life Long Liberal]

23. Good! n/t

[ProSense]

19. House passes bill

here

[Logical]

36. Isn't this great news? n-t

[and-justice-for-all]

39. I want Obama to tell the pukes to shove that POS bill up their ass...

and then offer them a nice hot cup of fuck you.