Huh? It's what they passed in their bill Joph. WTF?
Hehehe... product of the radio, you are.
Huh? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything at all. That's what is in H.R. 1. Are you denying this? By definition, that's the starting negotiating position of the House.
I've done plenty of searches Joph.
With all sincerity, I believe you are lying.
And yet, you can't produce any evidence to support your claim, but insist that I must disprove yours and when I can't find evidence to support your claim either, I'm just not looking hard enough? You've kinda got this whole thing backwards, don't you?
You DID no doubt come across numerous references to the GOP starting those negotiations with $36B in cuts though, right?
No. I didn't. Not one. How many times do I have to explain this to you?
I did happen across speaker Boehner's blog
. I mean, if his argument was that they offered to drop down to $36B and then the Dems still refused to accept that, you'd think it'd be right there, front and center, right? I see no mention of any offer of $36B in cuts there, do you?
I have not found a single source with a quote or statement or even suggestion from a member of the House GOP stating that they were offering the Dems 36B in cuts with no conditions from the Dems in return. Not one. I suggest that the burden of proof lies on you here, not me.
Let's just start with that. I've already posted links to some sources stating that the GOP opened the bipartisan negotiations with $36B so I'm sure you came across some others...
And I've already shown that none of those links actually say what you are claiming. Every single one that mentions the $36B figure comes out of a Dem mouth Joph. And none of them speak about riders.
Let me bottom line this for you. It's not about the dollar amount. It's about getting the Dems to budge on funding for their pet projects. That's why the GOP is willing to drop from 61B down to pretty much any number in the 30s. It's not about the specific number, but about testing the resolve of the Dems. Do they care more about funding for Planned Parenthood than they care about making sure active duty military get their paychecks? Do they care more about funding the NEA than they care about making sure that someone is writing IRS refund checks for American taxpayers? Do they care more about funding NPR than making sure that new Social Security applicants get their benefits?
The answer to all of those is apparently: Yes. The Dems care more about funding for those pet projects (some might even say "special interest" projects), than they care about funding vastly more important parts of the government. That's what this is about. That you don't see it is amazing. The GOP has positioned this so that it's so abundantly clear that no one can miss it. What did you think that short term resolution was about? They passed a bill in the House extending military pay for the full year, and everything else in the government for another week, and all the Dems had to do was to agree to a measly $12B in cuts, including those riders for those three projects. The point of that is to show that the Dems care more about those projects than they care about military families.
And while I'm sure most of those in the liberal bubble can't see this due to their own ideological blinders, the rest of the country is getting that message. It's as clear as possible and it's right in front of them. All the Dems had to do was give up funding for extremely non-important programs which most Americans think are a waste of money already, but they love them so much that they'll shut down the government in order to protect them.
That's the message of what's going on. It's really not about the dollar amount.