FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 640

clerk of the House ^ | 12/12/2013 | Clerk of House

[octex]

All of your arguments may be valid, in the near term. However, who is considering our children and grandchildren?
*************************
I completely understand what you’re saying, as I have a daughter and grandkids.

In re the “near term”: We can’t eat the elephant (no ref. to GOP) in one bite; we have to do it a piece at a time.

This little budget bill removes the ability of the Dems to attack the GOP about shutdowns (which would hurt the GOP in 2014, as they would be again falsely blamed), etc.

The GOP needs good press, not false accusations, to keep the House majority and win the majority in the Senate. If that can be done in 2014, a GOP Legislative branch can do a lot to change things. ....Proof is in the past.

Clinton’s last 6 years had a GOP Legislature and was forced to agree to many positive actions so he could be re-elected for a second term.

Bush’s last 2 years had a DEM Legislature that forced him to just give in to them because they were veto proof.

[fwdude]

Burgess used to be mine, and he never disappointed.

[fwdude]

I helped worked the campaign for Brasovan, who tried to primary Gramger several years ago. He came in second at 17%. Granger has the RINO wool pulled over the eyes of plenty of oblivious FW folks.

[eartick]

Ain’t no sense in me even looking. I know how my wetback from the valley voted.

We are the perfect case of taxation without representation.....and have been for decades.

[Carl Vehse]

Aderholt Amodei Andrews Bachus Barber Barletta Barr Barrow (GA) Beatty Becerra Benishek Bera (CA) Bilirakis Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blumenauer Boehner Bonamici Boustany Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Braley (IA) Brooks (IN) Brownley (CA) Buchanan Bucshon Bustos Butterfield Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cárdenas Carney Carson (IN) Carter Cartwright Cassidy Castor (FL) Chaffetz Clark (MA) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cohen Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Conaway Connolly Cook Cooper Costa Courtney Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Rodney DeGette Delaney DelBene Denham Dent Deutch Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Doyle Duckworth Duffy Edwards Ellmers Engel Enyart Eshoo Esty Farenthold Farr Fattah Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Frelinghuysen Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Garcia Gerlach Gibbs Gibson Goodlatte Granger Graves (GA) Graves (MO) Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Griffin (AR) Griffith (VA) Grimm Guthrie Gutiérrez Hahn Hanna Harper Hartzler Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Heck (WA) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Higgins Himes Hinojosa Honda Horsford Hudson Huffman Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurt Israel Issa Jackson Lee Jeffries Jenkins Johnson (GA) Johnson (OH) Johnson, E. B. Joyce Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (PA) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kirkpatrick Kline Kuster LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Langevin Lankford Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham Latta Lewis Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lujan Grisham (NM) Luján, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maffei Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Marino Matheson Matsui McAllister McCarthy (CA) McCaul McCollum McDermott McGovern McHenry McKeon McMorris Rodgers McNerney Meehan Meeks Meng Messer Mica Michaud Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Miller, George Moore Moran Murphy (FL) Murphy (PA) Nadler Napolitano Neal Noem Nolan Nunes Nunnelee O'Rourke Owens Palazzo Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Paulsen Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Perry Peters (CA) Peters (MI) Peterson Petri Pittenger Pitts Polis Price (GA) Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rokita Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Roybal-Allard Royce Ruiz Runyan Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Sarbanes Schiff Schneider Schock Schwartz Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Scott, David Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Sewell (AL) Shea-Porter Sherman Shimkus Shuster Simpson Sinema Sires Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Southerland Speier Stewart Stivers Stutzman Swalwell (CA) Takano Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tierney Tipton Titus Tonko Tsongas Turner Upton Valadao Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Wagner Walberg Walden Walorski Walz Wasserman Schultz Waxman Welch Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (FL) Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Womack Woodall Yarmuth Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IN)

Traitors all!

[1010RD]

I hope they offset that extension with other cuts, but I’m not holding my breath.

[Jane Long]

My Rep Olson also voted NO. I'd say "Yay! Good on him" except he only did so after taking a count from callers to his office. His staffer said he wasn't sure how Olson would be voting.

I told the staffer how tired I am of pols putting their finger in the wind and voting certain ways when they know they have "cover", especially during campaign season.

Marxist Grijalva of AZ voted NO - another *cover* vote.

[sport]

Wonder if he could talk sense to Boehner?

In spite of the old saying, "Everything is possible if you only _________[fill in blank" There are some things that are impossible. Talking sense to Boehner is one of them.

[i_robot73]

Sorry, but bullsh!t.

As no Congress can obligate the next, the ONLY way is to take the big bites. This concept of piece-meal ALWAYS means 2 steps forward (for the Dems) and MAYBE one step back (GOP)...though I haven’t seen ANY reversal in many a year.

I, unlike the low-info voters that lock-step with the DEM, can handle multitasking. And, again, I had NO problem with the shutdown (except the damn capitulation EVERY step by the Weeper EG: re-institute back-pay for those that SHOULDN’T BE EMPLOYED); I knew what was why.

If the GOP needs good press, maybe it should TALK once in a blue. All I’ve heard are crickets on everything from F&F to the NSA/IRS. Yeah, real good way to rally the voters by NOT making their displeasure known...unless it’s against the Tea Party/(C)/etc. as the Weeper has done with the budget.

As to Clinton vs. Bush, false argument. One does not merely sell out their principles because the others have the votes. You make them PAY for each vote, you voice WHY, and make over-ride the veto. I sure as shit don’t subscribe to the ‘destroy the Republic to save the Republic’.

[littleharbour]

No surprise, the usual suspects at NRO including Krauthammer are taking the side of Boehner and the koolaid drinkers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366210/score-one-boehner-andrew-stiles

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366218/krauthammers-take-rejecting-spending-deal-would-have-been-mindless-nro-staff

[MikefromOhio]

Complyin’, cooperatin’ crawlin’ and enablin’ like you, brought us to this, and once resulted in people boarding trains wishing to God they hadn’t listened to you.

LOL Thinkers like you cost lives. Don’t even think of coming near the foxhole I occupy. Got that?

I'm sure you'll still be on some website behind your keyboard.

[MikefromOhio]

I’m glad the GOP finally wised up to electoral realities and took an issue off of the table for the leftists to whine about all summer long.

*********************************

Contrary to most of the FReeper comments I’ve read here, I tend to agree with you.

I may be confused because of all the pro/con articles I’ve read about this. However, from what I gather:

1) The majority of the sequester is still in place. This bill reduces the sequester cuts to the Dept. of Defense.

2) As you indicated, the new Congress after the 2014 elections is not obligated to adhere to this deal.

3) It does take the whole budget argument off the table for 2014, and allows the GOPe and Conservatives to keep the heat on Obamacare and the other Democrat/Obama Admin. scandals.

For the system to change, the politicians need to break the current paradigm. The only way that happens is if the GOP starts winning elections and moving the right people in who can reform the system. How do you do that? By beating the Dems to the punch, pulling their issues that they always win the low information voters with to your side or at least to neutral and making short-term compromises that beget you more seats to make long term changes.

I don't particularly care if people agree with me, this isn't some stupid damn popularity contest or anything. It's must more important than having FReepers agree with me on some internet forum, ya know?

One caveat (which I posted originally and has since been glossed over by people raging): IF this compromise is attuned to the elections (I think it is) and IF the needed reforms happen after the GOP gains both houses of Congress (it might), then, if the reforms happen, this was a good deal.

If they don't, it was all for nothing and let the rage continue.

What people do not understand on this forum is even the most conservative congresscritter or senator will as gladly stab you in the back as shake your hand. Where the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress are different is how well they play the election game. The Republicans have been entirely inept at it since a certain Congressman from Georgia resigned in early 1999.

[MikefromOhio]

I largely agree.

But this agreement takes a rather large elephant out of the room for the 2014 elections.

Sequester, perhaps another shut down - all that stuff would detract from what the main focus should be in the mid-terms and that is the absolute and abject disaster that Obamacare is and will continue to be for the working families in this country.

Now the GOP can say “Hey, we got a budget deal done. However, this program is such an albatross we need to get it repealed as quickly as possible”...

As I said, if that was the goal and if, when newly returned with fresh majorities they actually get to work on the budget for real instead of this deadlocked Congress, then it was worth it.

If they don’t, I’ll join the rage against the machine too. It isn’t really a matter of trust - trusting a politician is just asking to get corn-holed - it’s a matter of competence.

[RitaOK]

Great line, there. And the basis for saying it was so apparent, and convincing, you being a clairvoyant and all.

You polished apple types fit somewhere, alright, but it will never be in the trenches over any meaningful principle higher than fraudulent, crass politics toward an imaginary victory, but hollow at best.

[Nextrush]

My representative Scott Perry (R-4th District PA) joined the tax and spend group. He’s out of the closet for higher spending, more debt and increased taxes disguised as “cuts”.

[octex]

As no Congress can obligate the next, the ONLY way is to take the big bites. This concept of piece-meal ALWAYS means 2 steps forward (for the Dems) and MAYBE one step back (GOP)...though I haven’t seen ANY reversal in many a year.
**********************************
Just how does the GOP take out a “big bite”, when the Dems hold the Senate and White House?

As to your comments about mine regarding Clinton and Bush...

Regardless of their personal feelings about things, their legislatures had veto-proof majorities (6 years of Clinton and 2 years of Bush). Both Presidents had little choice but to approve what Congress passed to them for approval.

That resulted in reducing the debt/deficent for a total of 12 years. ....Then the Obama regime arrived with a compliant Congress and they passed horrible legislation that tremendously increased our debt, unemployment, welfare, loss of stature in foreign relations, weakening of defense, etc.

At this point in time, without control of the Congress, the GOP can only nibble away and rely on the failure of the Obama admin. policies to finally awaken Americans to the fact that Socialism is NOT the answer. ...Hopefully, the tide will turn after the 2014 elections and we can neuter the White House.

[MikefromOhio]

Great line, there. And the basis for saying it was so apparent, and convincing, you being a clairvoyant and all.

You polished apple types fit somewhere, alright, but it will never be in the trenches over any meaningful principle higher than fraudulent, crass politics toward an imaginary victory, but hollow at best.

My my aren't you all high and mighty. LOL

[RitaOK]

While you’re spraying your monitor, do take a breath and measure the more lasting value of Tea Party principle, grinding it out on the ground and against the odds, over your fascination with sheer tactical manipulations and no substance in sight.

It’s tiresome to deal with Romney-Lite types, willing to rattle off the Establishment themes and messaging, on FR.

[MikefromOhio]

While you’re spraying your monitor, do take a breath and measure the more lasting value of Tea Party principle, grinding it out on the ground and against the odds, over your fascination with sheer tactical manipulations and no substance in sight.

It’s tiresome to deal with Romney-Lite types, willing to rattle off the Establishment themes and messaging, on FR.

I've watched the TEA Party go from a mainly economic and tax policy to espousing everything from the Bircher society that the United States has firmly rejected time and again.

The TEA party is marginalized. Look at how the middle 40% reacts when you say TEA party. It's called reality.

If you like near permanent Democratic majorities, continue to ignore the voice of reason. But if you want to fix the problems this nation is going to face very soon because of the out of control government spending, try LISTENING for a change or better yet, learn that there is a game being played in DC and that if you don't play and adapt to its rules, you will be ignored by it.

And as for spittle on the monitor, the only thing your commentary here has been good for is a good laugh and a reminder of why the 1%ers never win anything.

[RitaOK]

“Adapt” and compromise. Okay, I got you pegged and filed. Game on.