Lawmakers Agree On $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

Posted by | December 9, 2014 21:00 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories


There is an agreement that should avert a government shutdown.

In an unexpected move, lawmakers also agreed on legislation expected to be incorporated into the spending measure that will permit a reduction in benefits to current retirees at economically distressed multiemployer pension plans. Supporters said it was part of an effort to prevent a slow-motion collapse of a system that provides retirement income to millions, but critics objected vehemently…

Speaker John Boehner said he hoped for a vote on the measure on Thursday, and officials expressed confidence they could overcome opposition from tea party-backed Republicans and avoid a government shutdown.

Senate approval would then be required to send it to Obama – one of the final acts of a two-year Congress far better known for gridlock than for accomplishment.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

58 responses to Lawmakers Agree On $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

  1. tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 21:28

    Oh dear, 1.1 trillion what will the goptp say

  2. tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 22:28

    Oh dear, 1.1 trillion what will the goptp say

  3. tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 21:35

    “…a reduction in benefits to current retirees at economically distressed multiemployer pension plans.” So, a deal to throw seniors under the bus, but pension plan managers get big bonuses? How very perfect for two parties that depend on the finance industry for their ongoing campaign fundraising!

  4. tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 22:35

    “…a reduction in benefits to current retirees at economically distressed multiemployer pension plans.” So, a deal to throw seniors under the bus, but pension plan managers get big bonuses? How very perfect for two parties that depend on the finance industry for their ongoing campaign fundraising!

  5. Wayout December 9th, 2014 at 21:40

    And the establishment Repubs continue on with the big spending ways of Washington, and this time siding with Obama’s un-constitutional amnesty. The nation is lost with just one political party. Call them Republicrats or Demicans, the American people lose.

    • William December 9th, 2014 at 22:04

      ” It’s billions for illegals ”

      There’s no way around it.

      You are an idiot.
      People who are trying to stay under the INS radar try to work under the table.

      Ergo.

      “the “higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue. Moreover, an increase in personal income of this scale would generate consumer spending sufficient to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs.”

      Moreover, “if unauthorized Latino workers were granted legal status, the state government would benefit from a gross increase of $310 million in income taxes and the federal government would gain $1.4 billion in paid income taxes each year.”

      In another study, Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins estimate that, if the 8.5 million Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) in the United States who are eligible to naturalize did so, their earnings over the next decade would rise somewhere between $21 billion and $45 billion.

      These additional earnings and the spending they generate would amount to an increase in Gross Domestic Product of somewhere between $37 billion and $52 billion.

      http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-stimulus-economic-benefits-legalization-program

      • searambler December 9th, 2014 at 22:18

        You’ll never convince him with facts. Try praying for him to get smarter…..

        • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 07:38

          That’s right. Like the fact that when you add more people onto the health care program the price will rise, not decrease. It’s not me that bought Gruber’s and Obama’s line of BS.

          • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 07:58

            Gruber’s and Obama’s line of BS.

            _________

            What line of BS?

            In the real world, when you increase the number of people in the pool and spread out the risk, the price comes down.

            Before the ACA, billions of dollars of uncompensated costs are transferred directly to other market participants. It’s transferred directly to other market participants because health care providers charge higher rates in order to cover the costs of
            uncompensated care, and insurance companies reflect those higher rates in higher premiums.

          • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 09:52

            Clearly you’re just too simple-minded to understand.

      • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 07:36

        And I can cite studies that say more of them will get more money from the government than they are paying in. Starting with the massive expense of schooling these new arrivals and then moving on to welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, health care subsidies, and for the ones that are actually working, the Earned Income Tax Credit, all a drain of the taxpayers.

        • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 07:55

          Then cite them.

          As now they pay taxes and get very little if anything back.

          And with all the corporate tax loopholes that the GOP refuses to close, I would talk about ” drain of the taxpayers.”

        • William December 10th, 2014 at 09:24

          “I can cite studies that say more of them will get more money from the government than they are paying in”
          But you won’t. You’re ashamed to admit that you have absolutely no evidence. You’ll faithfully parrot your right wing talking points. Then when asked for proof, you’ll run away with your tail between your urine soaked legs. You always have and you always will.
          Asking a right wing sheep for evidence is like spraying raid on a roach.

        • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 09:54

          You won’t cite any studies. Everyone, even you, knows that.

    • SteveD December 9th, 2014 at 23:06

      “big spending ways of Washington”

      Total spending equals total income…when you cut federal govt spending by any amount, you are cutting income by the same amount. I’m waiting for your counter to that. Let me answer for you. So you like pay cuts, huh ? “Oh, only ‘pay cuts’ for the undeserving.” (And we all know who you believe those folks are.) Certainly you’ll give a pass to a still run amok MIC and an overly financialized Wall St? Anyway, let’s hope not. Not that it would matter anyway, they spend, invest or save and pay taxes on every one of those dollars.

      Plus, even if it were “billions” for illegals they would actually spend the money and be TAXED on the money spent, either directly or indirectly. How bleeping clueless are you?

      I like to think of taxes as “involuntary savings.” Everyone should save and invest. In the case of “involuntary savings “(taxation), the govt does the dirty work so you don’t have to. ALL government spending is investment. You might not like all of those investments, but in aggregate that spending benefits us all.

      1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars. (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
      2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
      3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
      4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

    • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 09:58

      “Obama’s un-constitutional amnesty.”

      Explain exactly what the president did, and specifically why it is unconstitutional. Cite the relevant parts of the Constitution in your explanation. Make your case.

      Or, admit you do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

  6. Wayout December 9th, 2014 at 22:40

    And the establishment Repubs continue on with the big spending ways of Washington, and this time siding with Obama’s un-constitutional amnesty. It’s billions for illegals and the nation is lost with just one political party. Call them Republicrats or Demicans, the American people lose.

    • William December 9th, 2014 at 23:04

      ” It’s billions for illegals ”

      There’s no way around it.

      You are an idiot.
      People who are trying to stay under the INS radar try to work under the table.

      Ergo.

      “the “higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue. Moreover, an increase in personal income of this scale would generate consumer spending sufficient to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs.”

      Moreover, “if unauthorized Latino workers were granted legal status, the state government would benefit from a gross increase of $310 million in income taxes and the federal government would gain $1.4 billion in paid income taxes each year.”

      In another study, Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins estimate that, if the 8.5 million Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) in the United States who are eligible to naturalize did so, their earnings over the next decade would rise somewhere between $21 billion and $45 billion.

      These additional earnings and the spending they generate would amount to an increase in Gross Domestic Product of somewhere between $37 billion and $52 billion.

      http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-stimulus-economic-benefits-legalization-program

      • searambler December 9th, 2014 at 23:18

        You’ll never convince him with facts. Try praying for him to get smarter…..

        • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 08:38

          That’s right. Like the fact that when you add more people onto the health care program the price will rise, not decrease. It’s not me that bought Gruber’s and Obama’s line of BS.

          • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 08:58

            Gruber’s and Obama’s line of BS.

            _________

            What line of BS?

            In the real world, when you increase the number of people in the pool and spread out the risk, the price comes down.

            Before the ACA, billions of dollars of uncompensated costs are transferred directly to other market participants. It’s transferred directly to other market participants because health care providers charge higher rates in order to cover the costs of
            uncompensated care, and insurance companies reflect those higher rates in higher premiums.

          • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 10:52

            Clearly you’re just too simple-minded to understand.

      • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 08:36

        No, you are the idiot. I can cite studies that say more of them will get more money from the government than they are paying in. If they get legal status the money doors are opened. Starting with the massive expense of schooling these new arrivals and then moving on to welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, health care subsidies, and for the ones that are actually working, the Earned Income Tax Credit, all a drain of the taxpayers.

        • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 08:55

          Then cite them.

          As now they pay taxes and get very little if anything back.

          And with all the corporate tax loopholes that the GOP refuses to close, I would talk about ” drain of the taxpayers.”

        • William December 10th, 2014 at 10:24

          “I can cite studies that say more of them will get more money from the government than they are paying in”
          But you won’t. You’re ashamed to admit that you have absolutely no evidence. You’ll faithfully parrot your right wing talking points. Then when asked for proof, you’ll run away with your tail between your urine soaked legs. You always have and you always will.
          Asking a right wing sheep for evidence is like spraying raid on a roach.

        • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 10:54

          You won’t cite any studies. Everyone, even you, knows that.

    • Guest December 10th, 2014 at 00:06

      “big spending ways of Washington”

      Total spending equals total income…when you cut federal govt spending by any amount, you are cutting income by the same amount. I’m waiting for your counter to that. Let me answer for you. So you like pay cuts, huh ? “Oh, only pay cuts for the undeserving.” (And we all know who you believe those folks are.) Certainly you’ll give a pass to a still run amok MIC and an overly financialized Wall St? Anyway, let’s hope not. Not that it would matter anyway, as the entities involved in those sectors spend, invest, save and pay taxes on every federal govt dollar (essentially tax credits) they receive.

      Plus, even if it were “billions for illegals” they would spend the money and be taxed on the money spent, either directly or indirectly. How bleeping clueless are you?

      I like to think of taxes as “involuntary savings.” Everyone should save and invest. In the case of “involuntary savings “(taxation), the govt does the dirty work so you don’t have to. ALL government spending is investment. You might not like where all of those investments are directed, but in aggregate that spending benefits us all.

      1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars. (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
      2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars.
      3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
      4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

    • searambler December 10th, 2014 at 10:58

      “Obama’s un-constitutional amnesty.”

      Explain exactly what the president did, and specifically why it is unconstitutional. Cite the relevant parts of the Constitution in your explanation. Make your case.

      Or, admit you do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

  7. OldLefty December 9th, 2014 at 21:42

    They need to raise some revenue.
    We want a first world society, we were always willing to pay for it.

    • Jack E Raynbeau December 9th, 2014 at 21:53

      We? You, me and a few others. Those that aren’t willing refer to themselves as patriots. “We” know better.

    • Foundryman December 9th, 2014 at 22:00

      A first world society used to to be the goal, before half the country went nuts believing they are “rugged individualists” who owe nothing to nobody and who built it all by themselves who think any tax they pay is involuntary theft.

      Those people would rather not have the roads, bridges, sewer systems, clean air, water, electric grid and an education system that works for everybody.

      • William December 9th, 2014 at 22:05

        Well written.

      • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 07:44

        That would be fine if you stopped at those things, but you continue to add payments for everything else – like bringing in poor, uneducated illegal immigrants, school lunches for those that could pay for them themselves, and a thousand other things that the Federal government has no business being involved in. The problem is there is nothing that you liberals don’t want the Feds to do, nothing, and that in the end will destroy us. At some point IT WILL COLLAPSE. Just look at the socialist paradise of Venezuela, they are toast!

        • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 08:27

          More accurately;

          That would be fine if you stopped the welfare for the rich, like allowing them to insource poor, uneducated illegal immigrants who can not report abuse, and outsourcing good jobs to sweatshops, (what Tom Delay called a “petrie dish of capitalism”), and spending way more than necessary to privatize government functions.

          The problem is there is nothing that you CONSERVATIVES don’t want the PRIVATE SECTOR to do, at government expense. There is no point at which YOU CONSERVATIVES are not willing to socialize the the risks and losses, while privatizing the profits. and that in the end it will destroy us. At some point IT WILL COLLAPSE.

          We just cannot keep spending on the rich while not investing in our own nation and borrowing in the massive amounts in which we are doing. Just look at the libertarian paradise of Somalia, they are the poster child for what you “REGRESSIVES” believe in.

          Meanwhile, the United States is outperforming other
          economies throughout the developed world, who practice the GOP style austerity.

          “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.
          The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
          The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. ”

          Adam Smith, Wealth of nations p861

          Remember the Adam Smith ties of the 1980’s?

          You regressives have kicked Adam Smith, the “Father of Capitalism” to the curb in favor of Ayn Rand, the “Mother of Nihilism”.

          • Mainah December 10th, 2014 at 10:09

            Boom!

            *Oldlefty drops the mic!*

            http://giphy.com/gifs/IOCXHPvn3WErm/html5

          • arc99 December 10th, 2014 at 10:38

            Even if the policies that right wingers endorse produce catastrophic results, right wingers are too damn dishonest to admit it, and blame others.

            Look at Gov. Brownback in Kansas. His policies have produced huge deficits and led to the lowering of their state bond rating. What did right wingers do? They blamed the President.

            Look at the gulf oil spill. It was the essence of the right wing wet dream of drill-baby-drill. When the spill occurred destroying marine habitat and thousands of jobs, what did right wingers do? They blamed the Sierra Club and environmentalists.

            These people demonstrate zero sense of responsibility for the damage they do. There is always someone else to blame, usually liberals, and the low information voters who put them into office lap up the BS like mother’s milk. They saw it on FOX, and Rush said so. Obviously it is all true. It is liberals who are responsible for right wing mistakes.

  8. OldLefty December 9th, 2014 at 22:42

    They need to raise some revenue.
    We want a first world society, we were always willing to pay for it.

    • Jack E Raynbeau December 9th, 2014 at 22:53

      We? You, me and a few others. Those that aren’t willing refer to themselves as patriots. “We” know better.

    • Foundryman December 9th, 2014 at 23:00

      A first world society used to to be the goal, before half the country went nuts believing they are “rugged individualists” who owe nothing to nobody and who built it all by themselves who think any tax they pay is involuntary theft.

      Those people would rather not have the roads, bridges, sewer systems, clean air, water, electric grid and an education system that works for everybody.

      • William December 9th, 2014 at 23:05

        Well written.

      • Wayout December 10th, 2014 at 08:44

        That would be fine if you stopped at those things, but you continue to add payments for everything else – like bringing in poor, uneducated illegal immigrants, school lunches for those that could pay for them themselves, and a thousand other things that the Federal government has no business being involved in. The problem is there is nothing that you liberals don’t want the Feds to do, nothing, and that in the end will destroy us. At some point IT WILL COLLAPSE. We just cannot keep spending and borrowing in the massive amounts in which we are doing. Just look at the socialist paradise of Venezuela, they are the poster child for what you “progressives” believe in.

        • OldLefty December 10th, 2014 at 09:27

          More accurately;

          That would be fine if you stopped the welfare for the rich, like allowing them to insource poor, uneducated illegal immigrants who can not report abuse, and outsourcing good jobs to sweatshops, (what Tom Delay called a “petrie dish of capitalism”), and spending way more than necessary to privatize government functions.

          The problem is there is nothing that you CONSERVATIVES don’t want the PRIVATE SECTOR to do, at government expense. There is no point at which YOU CONSERVATIVES are not willing to socialize the the risks and losses, while privatizing the profits. and that in the end it will destroy us. At some point IT WILL COLLAPSE.

          We just cannot keep spending on the rich while not investing in our own nation and borrowing in the massive amounts in which we are doing. Just look at the libertarian paradise of Somalia, they are the poster child for what you “REGRESSIVES” believe in.

          Meanwhile, the United States is outperforming other
          economies throughout the developed world, who practice the GOP style austerity.

          “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.
          The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
          The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. ”

          Adam Smith, Wealth of nations p861

          Remember the Adam Smith ties of the 1980’s?

          You regressives have kicked Adam Smith, the “Father of Capitalism” to the curb in favor of Ayn Rand, the “Mother of Nihilism”.

          • Mainah December 10th, 2014 at 11:09

            Boom!

            *Oldlefty drops the mic!*

            http://giphy.com/gifs/IOCXHPvn3WErm/html5

          • arc99 December 10th, 2014 at 11:38

            Even if the policies that right wingers endorse produce catastrophic results, right wingers are too damn dishonest to admit it, and blame others.

            Look at Gov. Brownback in Kansas. His policies have produced huge deficits and led to the lowering of their state bond rating. What did right wingers do? They blamed the President.

            Look at the gulf oil spill. It was the essence of the right wing wet dream of drill-baby-drill. When the spill occurred destroying marine habitat and thousands of jobs, what did right wingers do? They blamed the Sierra Club and environmentalists.

            These people demonstrate zero sense of responsibility for the damage they do. There is always someone else to blame, usually liberals, and the low information voters who put them into office lap up the BS like mother’s milk. They saw it on FOX, and Rush said so. Obviously it is all true. It is liberals who are responsible for right wing mistakes.

  9. Guy Lauten December 9th, 2014 at 22:01

    I don’t think it will fly. The Cruz is lurking…

  10. Guy Lauten December 9th, 2014 at 23:01

    I don’t think it will fly. The Cruz is lurking…

  11. searambler December 9th, 2014 at 22:21

    “…lawmakers also agreed on legislation… that will permit a reduction in benefits to current retirees at economically distressed multiemployer pension plans.”

    ‘Bout time those lazy mooching retirees took one for America. Can’t expect Wall Street to take all the financial hits. Oh right…..

  12. searambler December 9th, 2014 at 23:21

    “…lawmakers also agreed on legislation… that will permit a reduction in benefits to current retirees at economically distressed multiemployer pension plans.”

    ‘Bout time those lazy mooching retirees took one for America. Can’t expect Wall Street to take all the financial hits. Oh right…..

  13. tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 22:58

    It is garbage and hurts the middle class. Government workers will have their promised pensions slashed…no worries, the elected dicks are all safe and will receive another raise. The EPA is cut to the lowest levels EVER. Wealthy people may now contribute a whooping 324,000 to a candidate, raised from 32,000.

    • Mainah December 10th, 2014 at 10:02

      Love how they created a bill that helps their coffers.

      • tracey marie December 10th, 2014 at 16:04

        it surely does. Read what is in it it is ridiculous

  14. tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 23:58

    It is garbage and hurts the middle class. Government workers will have their promised pensions slashed…no worries, the elected dicks are all safe and will receive another raise. The EPA is cut to the lowest levels EVER. Wealthy people may now contribute a whooping 324,000 to a candidate, raised from 32,000.

    • Mainah December 10th, 2014 at 11:02

      Love how they created a bill that helps their coffers.

      • tracey marie December 10th, 2014 at 17:04

        it surely does. Read what is in it it is ridiculous

  15. rg9rts December 10th, 2014 at 02:53

    I guess the gopee didn’t want to make asses of themselves by shutting down the government when they are running the show! LOL…its not funny…

  16. rg9rts December 10th, 2014 at 03:53

    I guess the gopee didn’t want to make asses of themselves by shutting down the government when they are running the show! LOL…its not funny…

Leave a Reply