President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.
Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.
"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.
The White House has held its proposal out as a "balanced approach" to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time.
By contrast the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would notch just $3.1 trillion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $2 trillion.
The Senate is holding votes Wednesday on Mr. Obama's budget, the House GOP's budget and the three Senate Republican alternatives. None was expected to gain the 50 votes needed to pass the chamber.
So the Republican senators put up a vote then voted against their own proposals? Is there a point to these types of stunts or are they just the infantile games that they seem?
Our politicians are worthless pieces of crap that are only worried about their own welfare, but even they wouldn't spend the taxpayers money playing useless pre-school games like these...
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
And yet another one of Frazzleds threads doesn't faithfully represent reality.
The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
And yet another one of Frazzleds threads doesn't faithfully represent reality.
Well is Shuma disagrees it must, by default, be a good thing.
Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
The republicans submitted the presidents budget except the document was different.
Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
The republicans submitted the presidents budget except the document was different.
Ergo it wasn't his budget.
Ergo this thread is bs and you are lying.
I suppose this is irrelevant:
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them
IIRC, the President's budget didn't get any votes last year in the Senate.
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
And yet another one of Frazzleds threads doesn't faithfully represent reality.
I'm not sure that matters Shuma. The article notes that Republicans challenged Democrats to look through the proposal for errors and none accepted. Its possible that the proposal does in fact match Obama's, or maybe the problem is in something other than the numbers?
EDIT: Though this raises the question for me; To what extent is Obama supported by his own party?
Poppabear wrote:Ohhhhhh, your from Texas, now its all coming together
We are blessed by a natural environment akin to a deathworld, much like our Australian brothers, that is true. You make up for it in beer and barbie. We make up for it in tequila and well barbie.
Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
The republicans submitted the presidents budget except the document was different.
Ergo it wasn't his budget.
Ergo this thread is bs and you are lying.
I suppose this is irrelevant:
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them
IIRC, the President's budget didn't get any votes last year in the Senate.
Presumably they could of held up the missing pages. Rather though they just voted it down. Apparently things like pieces of paper either existing or not existing is a hard concept these days for conservatives.
Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
The republicans submitted the presidents budget except the document was different.
Ergo it wasn't his budget.
Ergo this thread is bs and you are lying.
They disagree. If Reid disagrees, how come he's never put it to a vote???
Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.
And yet another one of Frazzleds threads doesn't faithfully represent reality.
I'm not sure that matters Shuma. The article notes that Republicans challenged Democrats to look through the proposal for errors and none accepted. Its possible that the proposal does in fact match Obama's, or maybe the problem is in something other than the numbers?
No, really, it's not that hard. You don't take a lengthy law document, cut out large portions of it, and maintain it word for word. That the democrats didn't want to engage in some sort of wheres waldo idiocy is unsurprising. Why didn't they just submit the document as it was originally written if they didn't plan to change anything?
Frazzled wrote:Why didn't the Democrats? You know, Obama's own party people?
Who cares? Why didn't you stop that building from burning down frazzled? Why are you a murderer? See? This is fun. It's fun to make up stuff and then equivocate endlessly. It's not at all a waste of time.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, really, it's not that hard. You don't take a lengthy law document, cut out large portions of it, and maintain it word for word. That the democrats didn't want to engage in some sort of wheres waldo idiocy is unsurprising. Why didn't they just submit the document as it was originally written if they didn't plan to change anything?
Because the President's budget doesn't include enabling language that makes the budget an actual law. The President doesn't write the budget, he makes recommendations. It is up to Congress to actually write the budget. Which is, presumably, why Senators have so many aides.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, really, it's not that hard. You don't take a lengthy law document, cut out large portions of it, and maintain it word for word. That the democrats didn't want to engage in some sort of wheres waldo idiocy is unsurprising. Why didn't they just submit the document as it was originally written if they didn't plan to change anything?
Because the President's budget doesn't include enabling language that makes the budget an actual law. The President doesn't write the budget, he makes recommendations. It is up to Congress to actually write the budget. Which is, presumably, why Senators have so many aides.
Ahh, well it's nice that they were able to get the spark notes version of his recommendations from amazon to submit. Speaking of which, didn't they universally lampoon his budget a week ago? Whats with the about face?
Everything about this is low brow in the extreme. It was a clearly political ploy designed to generate talking points about the presidents failure to push through a budget. Whats worse, they've backed it by renewing the vow to hold the debt ceiling hostage. This is sickening.
ShumaGorath wrote:Ahh, well it's nice that they were able to get the spark notes version of his recommendations from amazon to submit. Speaking of which, didn't they universally lampoon his budget a week ago? Whats with the about face?
Yup, and they all voted against it.
The "about face" is forcing the Democrats to vote on Obama's proposals. The Republicans want to tie Democrat Senators to Obama's policy proposals. They, for some reason, aren't biting.
Remember that Sen. Reid used just about every trick in the book to prevent this bill from coming to the floor for a vote.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, really, it's not that hard. You don't take a lengthy law document, cut out large portions of it, and maintain it word for word. That the democrats didn't want to engage in some sort of wheres waldo idiocy is unsurprising. Why didn't they just submit the document as it was originally written if they didn't plan to change anything?
Because the President's budget doesn't include enabling language that makes the budget an actual law. The President doesn't write the budget, he makes recommendations. It is up to Congress to actually write the budget. Which is, presumably, why Senators have so many aides.
Ahh, well it's nice that they were able to get the spark notes version of his recommendations from amazon to submit. Speaking of which, didn't they universally lampoon his budget a week ago? Whats with the about face?
Everything about this is low brow in the extreme. It was a clearly political ploy designed to generate talking points about the presidents failure to push through a budget. Whats worse, they've backed it by renewing the vow to hold the debt ceiling hostage. This is sickening.
So submitting the President's budget to the vote of the Senate and having the Senate do what its constitutionally required to do is low brow? If it cheap political points (which it is) why hasn't the Senate already voted on the President's budget or voted on another budget or done some damn thing in the last three years?
If anything by all rights this topic warrants dickishness to a level that would blot out the sun. The sheer hoops fraz and biccat are managing to jump through along with blinders that would keep Raohs horse from being able to see anything threatens to get half this forum hired by Newt Gingrich's PR firm.
So you can't or won't answer the simple question of why, if supposedly thisisn't Obama's budget, the Senate has not already voted on Obama's budget. Its been awhile. Its been years since the Senate passed any budget.
Of course if Congress actually would get it's act together and come up with a budget, instead of passing short term resolutions for years on end, then we might actually get somewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:So you can't or won't answer the simple question of why, if supposedly thisisn't Obama's budget, the Senate has not already voted on Obama's budget. Its been awhile. Its been years since the Senate passed any budget.
Fire them all work for everyone?
It would be the best option at some point I am sure. Of course slowly but surely even the long term politicians that are known for working across the party line are getting tired of it and are resigning, only to be replaced by partisan hacks.
So you can't or won't answer the simple question of why, if supposedly thisisn't Obama's budget, the Senate has not already voted on Obama's budget.
Its been years since the Senate passed any budget.
You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?
If anything the republicans probably got tired not getting to vote it down so they decided to put it up themselves AND THEN fething VOTE IT DOWN. That you can't see the sheer insanity in that frightens me to my core. You are an American with the right to vote. We are doomed.
ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?
Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.
We're just obstructionists. On the positive there's hope yet. I'm ready that full 8 gun sections of 25 pounders in FOW are far more efficacious than I had realized. When combined with Air observation at least in V2 you had multiple re-rolls. I shall have to check this out further as I am facing Sherman Jumbasy Eight crackheads to the left of me and King Tiger methusers to the right of me. How are my valiant free Poles to survive?
ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?
Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism. Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.
Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism. Republicans don't get to vote against something so they rewrite it and then put it to a vote and then vote against it: Probably part of a spell used to summon Cthulu.
There is probably a point where the hoop becomes so large that you can't even see it anymore. I think part of the hoop just collided with the moon.
Frazzled wrote:Yep. I'm tired of the partisan hacks.
One of our Senators is Coburn. He is pretty far on the right on every issue, very conservative, and I think just a bit crazy. I have never voted for him. But in my opinion he has two things going for him:
He keeps his word. He told everyone he would term limit himself in the house, and he did. He also ran on a zero earmarks platform, and he has not requested any for Oklahoma.
He knows that compromise is needed. He is pretty much ultra-conservative and doesn't agree with democrats on most issues. But he knows that sometimes to get what you want you have to give in return. He also got attacked for actually being nice to President Obama, and stated that just because he disagrees with him on just about everything does not mean he needs to be disagreeable and that he will respect the president and keep the dialog open.
I still think he is a conservative nut job (although not as bad as Inhofe), but I respect him for his willingness to compromise and get stuff done.
Frazzled wrote:The Republicans submitted the President's budget to a vote in the Democratically controlled Senate. It got killed. The point is efectivewly no member of Congress voted for the President's budget. I'm not sure if that has ever occurred before.
Its debatable whether or not it was Obama's budget, but without seeing the two proposals (Obama's original, and what the Republicans proposed) we can't know for sure.
I suspect, seeing as Obama's formal proposal is being voted on today (the 16th) that either the budget was materially different in its language (it would almost have to be if it were significantly shorter), Democrats voted against it because it was a Republican budget, or the proposal has little support from Democrats because it is either too large a budget or too small for Dem Senators.
LordofHats wrote:EDIT: Though this raises the question for me; To what extent is Obama supported by his own party?
Obama is criticised by the democrats for trying to compromise with the Republicans too much, while the Republicans criticize him because they like to move the goalposts whenever he tries to compromise with them.
I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.
LordofHats wrote:I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.
So, is this more of that maybe?
That's what I wonder.
Unlikely, it's too unified. Were it actually a legitimate vote on a bill that wasn't going to be put to vote unaltered shortly anyway there would be a much more mixed set of votes.
LordofHats wrote:I don't mean that. I remember back during the Health Car debate that some Democrates were upset with him cause he was 'forcing' them to make a vote on the issue, which for some of them could be politically disastrous.
So, is this more of that maybe?
That's what I wonder.
Of course the question should be "is this good for the country" and not "is this good for me politically".
As an outsider, why would the president try to pass a bill if there was litererally 0 support for it? Would he not at least get a feel for what could pass and what couldn't? How can every single representative be against something, yet he still tried to pass it?
Joey wrote:As an outsider, why would the president try to pass a bill if there was litererally 0 support for it? Would he not at least get a feel for what could pass and what couldn't? How can every single representative be against something, yet he still tried to pass it?
The President did not support the bill. His officer merely produces a budget, there is no impetus on the White House to present it as a bill or support it afterwards. Really the House creates the budgets...which they have failed to do for some time.
The Washington Times? Seriously? Guys do you not realize this is a tabloid newspaper? While I agree that Congress and the Senate are in a total mess right now....
ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?
Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.
ShumaGorath wrote:You answered your own question. It's likely they realized that it couldn't be passed through the house and congress and weren't looking to get into another ugly budget slap fight before a new election cycle that could deliver them majorities. If the republicans have already vowed to vote it down and have proven their willingness to do so and unwillingness to debate or be reconciliatory than whats the point?
Republicans vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Democrats vote against something: Republican obstructionism.
Boy, Frazzled and I are sure jumping through hoops on this one.
A partisan hack newspaper gives a misleading description of the issue.
frazzled posts it to Dakka unquestioningly.
People explain to Fraz why it was a transparently cheap stunt by Republicans, and he and biccat invent some disingenuous nonsense to pretend that it isn't true.
We all anxiously wait to see what stupid nonsense fraz will post tomorrow.
sebster wrote:Republicans launch a transparently cheap stunt.
A partisan hack newspaper gives a misleading description of the issue.
frazzled posts it to Dakka unquestioningly.
People explain to Fraz why it was a transparently cheap stunt by Republicans, and he and biccat invent some disingenuous nonsense to pretend that it isn't true.
We all anxiously wait to see what stupid nonsense fraz will post tomorrow.
It's almost like a routine, a mind-numbingly stupid one, but a routine.
Joey wrote:As an outsider, why would the president try to pass a bill if there was litererally 0 support for it? Would he not at least get a feel for what could pass and what couldn't? How can every single representative be against something, yet he still tried to pass it?
The President didn't try and pass the bill. The Republicans took his budget, made their own version of what they thought it meant and put that up for a vote. Because it was their stupid stunt, of course every Republican voted against the bill, and because it was nonsense bill put up by the Republicans, of course every Democrat voted against it as well.
It's was just a stupid stunt, wasting chamber time. But Fraz, dutiful Republican footsoldier that he is, posted it unquestioningly to dakka.
sebster wrote:Republicans launch a transparently cheap stunt.
A partisan hack newspaper gives a misleading description of the issue.
frazzled posts it to Dakka unquestioningly.
People explain to Fraz why it was a transparently cheap stunt by Republicans, and he and biccat invent some disingenuous nonsense to pretend that it isn't true.
We all anxiously wait to see what stupid nonsense fraz will post tomorrow.
It's almost like a routine, a mind-numbingly stupid one, but a routine.
Hey, he has a lot of free time since they took his MOD duties away...
Melissia wrote:It's almost like a routine, a mind-numbingly stupid one, but a routine.
What disappoints me the most is that Fraz, and hundreds of thousands of other movement conservatives out there, have basically said through their actions that not only do they simply not care when their party and its affiliated news outlets lie to them, they don't care when they're told really obviously wrong, ridiculous lies.
Because of this, the Republican party isn't even bothering to conceal its lies. It just throws any old gak out there, knowing fraz and all the other true believers will happily snap it up unquestioningly.
Which means when the rest of us read the fraz's daily nonsense threads, it isn't even hard to figure out why it's ridiculous. And when there's no challenge, there's no fun.
I mean, say what you want about the Democrats, but at least you generally have to do some thinking to figure out how they're misleading you. This stuff from the Republicans is just pathetic.
Melissia wrote:It's almost like a routine, a mind-numbingly stupid one, but a routine.
What disappoints me the most is that Fraz, and hundreds of thousands of other movement conservatives out there, have basically said through their actions that not only do they simply not care when their party and its affiliated news outlets lie to them, they don't care when they're told really obviously wrong, ridiculous lies.
Because of this, the Republican party isn't even bothering to conceal its lies. It just throws any old gak out there, knowing fraz and all the other true believers will happily snap it up unquestioningly.
Which means when the rest of us read the fraz's daily nonsense threads, it isn't even hard to figure out why it's ridiculous. And when there's no challenge, there's no fun.
I mean, say what you want about the Democrats, but at least you generally have to do some thinking to figure out how they're misleading you. This stuff from the Republicans is just pathetic.
sebster wrote:But Fraz, dutiful Republican footsoldier that he is, posted it unquestioningly to dakka.
He may just be a footsoldier now, but I'm sure creating 4 threads a day with this sort of derp will have him at least to Footsoldier First Class in a week. Grind those levels, buddy!
It's cute when Texans think they're more conservative than Okies. Even our democrats are more conservative than Tejas neo-cons.
If I had to live in constant fear of a zeta death squad, I'd sit around with my tinfoil hat on too, just like Fraz. He needs to buy more weinerdogs to protect the hacienda.
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
I resent those implications. I was born in Texas, have spent the last seven years of my life in Texas, and plan to live in Texas until I die. Yet I am considered by friends and family to be a flaming liberal commie bastard.
Ouze wrote:He may just be a footsoldier now, but I'm sure creating 4 threads a day with this sort of derp will have him at least to Footsoldier First Class in a week. Grind those levels, buddy!
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
I resent those implications. I was born in Texas, have spent the last seven years of my life in Texas, and plan to live in Texas until I die. Yet I am considered by friends and family to be a flaming liberal commie bastard.
How flaming are we talking about? Austin flaming, or Dallas flaming?
I vote that we all show up to the House of Reps on June 29th, the last day they are session that week, We boldly announce that they are all fired, then proceed to take over the chamber and begin work on a budget, about 3 years overdue.
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
I resent those implications. I was born in Texas, have spent the last seven years of my life in Texas, and plan to live in Texas until I die. Yet I am considered by friends and family to be a flaming liberal commie bastard.
How flaming are we talking about? Austin flaming, or Dallas flaming?
Hmm, I support gay marriage, transgender rights, have no problems with illegal immigration, women's rights and want all elements of Judeo-Christian rhetoric removed from public, government funded locations...where would that put me?
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I vote that we all show up to the House of Reps on June 29th, the last day they are session that week, We boldly announce that they are all fired, then proceed to take over the chamber and begin work on a budget, about 3 years overdue.
sebster wrote:Republicans launch a transparently cheap stunt.
A partisan hack newspaper gives a misleading description of the issue.
frazzled posts it to Dakka unquestioningly.
People explain to Fraz why it was a transparently cheap stunt by Republicans, and he and biccat invent some disingenuous nonsense to pretend that it isn't true.
We all anxiously wait to see what stupid nonsense fraz will post tomorrow.
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
Careful lest we mistake you for Mexico and take half your country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Melissia wrote:It's almost like a routine, a mind-numbingly stupid one, but a routine.
What disappoints me the most is that Fraz, and hundreds of thousands of other movement conservatives out there, have basically said through their actions that not only do they simply not care when their party and its affiliated news outlets lie to them, they don't care when they're told really obviously wrong, ridiculous lies.
Because of this, the Republican party isn't even bothering to conceal its lies. It just throws any old gak out there, knowing fraz and all the other true believers will happily snap it up unquestioningly.
Which means when the rest of us read the fraz's daily nonsense threads, it isn't even hard to figure out why it's ridiculous. And when there's no challenge, there's no fun.
I mean, say what you want about the Democrats, but at least you generally have to do some thinking to figure out how they're misleading you. This stuff from the Republicans is just pathetic.
What dissapoints me most is that this thread has turned to discussing evil Frazzled, and yet there are no pics of wiener dog uber domination. Well son, I've come to chew bubble gum and post wienie dog pics, and I am all out of bubble gum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
I resent those implications. I was born in Texas, have spent the last seven years of my life in Texas, and plan to live in Texas until I die. Yet I am considered by friends and family to be a flaming liberal commie bastard.
Yea but you're not a real man until you vote for Ralph Nader in a Republican state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Ouze wrote:He may just be a footsoldier now, but I'm sure creating 4 threads a day with this sort of derp will have him at least to Footsoldier First Class in a week. Grind those levels, buddy!
one has to have goals. On the positive I'm looking at my first IDPA competition on the 31st. I'm so excited!
I expect to get much more busy with the banks imploding. We might go into firedrill mode ala 2008 pretty soon. That will be interesting and by interesting I mean crazy in the bad way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Poppabear wrote:Now lets me fair, he's Texan after all, we should cut him some slack... ;D
I resent those implications. I was born in Texas, have spent the last seven years of my life in Texas, and plan to live in Texas until I die. Yet I am considered by friends and family to be a flaming liberal commie bastard.
How flaming are we talking about? Austin flaming, or Dallas flaming?
Hmm, I support gay marriage, transgender rights, have no problems with illegal immigration, women's rights and want all elements of Judeo-Christian rhetoric removed from public, government funded locations...where would that put me?
Wow, that like sounds like me. You sure you're not a Libertarian?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:@All: Please stop using someone's state of birth/residence as a personal insult. Thanks.
I would like it noted I did not report anyway, other than to the fashion police Oh Yea.
Am I the only one looking forward to pounding rum and going to see the Dictator?
Some might wonder: if a bunch of budget bills got voted on in the Senate, why isn't there major news coverage of the issue, especially given that it's a slow news day? Others are quite clear in their answer: because it doesn't help Obama.
Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one looking forward to pounding rum and going to see the Dictator?
Or does that only come up when there are counter-accusations of trollingn?
Don't be a dick. /video
Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one looking forward to pounding rum and going to see the Dictator?
Sounds fun. Not sure about the movie.
It kinda reminds me of a mash up of Zohan and Coming to America. I will be seeing since my wife loves all of SBC's movies...even Brüno...no accounting for taste I suppose. anyways it should be at least OK and probably even good.
Although I like my tweeked 92 much better: 1) the DA/SA is too much for me and it aggravates the hand shaking; 2) She Who Must Be Obeyed and Genghis Connie have seized joint custody of it, prying it from my chocolate stained hands.
Will be shooting a stock 9mm M&P. Later may get a trigger job on it.
yea Borat/Dictator could be good or meh but perfect for booze and popcorn.
Some might wonder: if a bunch of budget bills got voted on in the Senate, why isn't there major news coverage of the issue, especially given that it's a slow news day? Others are quite clear in their answer: because it doesn't help Obama.
Because they voted on three budget bills that day, the democrats had a planned date for introducing this bill already (without it being fake), and it was a cheap political joke that you somehow are capable of thinking is real?
I think that's the actual answer. No one takes it seriously but it's not to be taken seriously. Keep holding that torch though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: yea Borat/Dictator could be good or meh but perfect for booze and popcorn.
I'm not expecting good things from it. I think Borat was better than the director really intended. It was kind of a mistake. His other film outings have all been bombs and this one looks about as cheap and easy as those.
Frazzled wrote:Agreed, I'm not expecting Shakespeare from Dictator (we may wait and rent so we can make fun of it and Troy can bark at me all night for popcorn).
BarBoBot wrote:obama had majorities in both the house and senate for 2 years after he was elected.... and he never got a budget passed then either.
He never intended to... a budget would constrain his spending, and all he knows how to do is to throw tax payer money around like its monopoly money.
Romney may not be a great option, but ANY option is a hell of a lot better than obama.
He didn't have a fillibuster proof majority in either which was required to pass anything at the time. It's hard to jam gak through if the other part can just kill it without voting (which they did. A lot.) Lets not let reality get in the way of a good rant though.
Frazzled wrote:Agreed, I'm not expecting Shakespeare from Dictator (we may wait and rent so we can make fun of it and Troy can bark at me all night for popcorn).
Just go see Avengers again.
I wasn't impressed with the Avengers. I was expecting more from Joss Whedon. The alien battle was fine but every other part of the movie bored me.
Waiting for Prometheus, counting the seconds though. Been waiting for two years for that one. tick...tick..tick.
Frazzled wrote:Agreed, I'm not expecting Shakespeare from Dictator (we may wait and rent so we can make fun of it and Troy can bark at me all night for popcorn).
Just go see Avengers again.
I wasn't impressed with the Avengers. I was expecting more from Joss Whedon. The alien battle was fine but every other part of the movie bored me.
Waiting for Prometheus, counting the seconds though. Been waiting for two years for that one. tick...tick..tick.
You are the worst kind of North Korean moon demon terrorist for not loving the Avengers. I agree about Prometheus though.
Strangely enough, Captain America and Thor bore me to tears. Anything not including Robert Downey or the new Hulk guy was pretty boring, and thats sad considering I think the guy playing Hulk is an otherwise excellent actor.
Frazzled wrote:Agreed, I'm not expecting Shakespeare from Dictator (we may wait and rent so we can make fun of it and Troy can bark at me all night for popcorn).
Just go see Avengers again.
I wasn't impressed with the Avengers. I was expecting more from Joss Whedon. The alien battle was fine but every other part of the movie bored me.
This is by far the craziest thing you have ever posted.
BarBoBot wrote:obama had majorities in both the house and senate for 2 years after he was elected.... and he never got a budget passed then either.
He never intended to... a budget would constrain his spending, and all he knows how to do is to throw tax payer money around like its monopoly money.
Romney may not be a great option, but ANY option is a hell of a lot better than obama.
You clearly have no understanding how the government budget process works, and what happens when there is no budget. In lieu of passing budgets, congress usually manages to stop sniping at each other long enough to pass a CR, a Continuing Resolution. Such things usually preserve the previous year's funding for projects, although usually some lower percentage is set. The average is usually around 84%, if I recall correctly, meaning the agency receives a budget roughly 84% of the last passed budget. Each CR will usually set the specific percentage.
Not having a budget does not give Obama a blank check, and he is not able to "throw tax payer money around like its [sic] monopoly money" any more than he "does" when there IS a budget.
Or did you miss the news stories where Congress holds the budget/CR hostage and threatens government shutdowns? Ya know, from NOT having a budget/CR?
Edit: I am going to see Avengers this weekend if I have to walk to the theatre...
BarBoBot wrote:obama had majorities in both the house and senate for 2 years after he was elected.... and he never got a budget passed then either.
He never intended to... a budget would constrain his spending, and all he knows how to do is to throw tax payer money around like its monopoly money.
Romney may not be a great option, but ANY option is a hell of a lot better than obama.
He didn't have a fillibuster proof majority in either which was required to pass anything at the time. It's hard to jam gak through if the other part can just kill it without voting (which they did. A lot.) Lets not let reality get in the way of a good rant though.
Then how do you explain Obamacare? Clearly he was able to pass unpopular legislation without the other party killing it out of hand. Don't get in the way of a good rant.
Ranters of the World Unite!
Frazzled wrote:
I wasn't impressed with the Avengers. I was expecting more from Joss Whedon. The alien battle was fine but every other part of the movie bored me.
Waiting for Prometheus, counting the seconds though. Been waiting for two years for that one. tick...tick..tick.
Really? My wife hated, HATED Captain America and loved Avengers. She has now demanded that I procure Hulk,Ironman, and Thor so she can watch them. I refuse to acknowledge Ironman 2 (and it's on Netflix). The battle really is the best part though especially where Hulk and Thor look all victorious and friendly and then Hulk "Right Turn Clyde"'s Thor.
Then how do you explain Obamacare? Clearly he was able to pass unpopular legislation without the other party killing it out of hand. Don't get in the way of a good rant. Ranters of the World Unite!
By sliding it into a different voting procedure that only required a simple majority vote using an archaic process to avoid the opposition entirely. He burned a lot of bridges pushing it through like that. It was somewhat undemocratic (though it was still democratic as it did require a majority.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Because when Obama passed Romneycare, it WASN'T unpopular.
It wasn't popular enough to get the votes it needed. It was too politically dangerous to take a stand and do the right thing when the conservative yellow-media-subarine was trying to torpedo it with death panels. Too many Democrats were chicken gak and too many republicans were monsters. It cost a lot of democrats their seats and the party recognized that it would before the vote.
Melissia wrote:Because when Obama passed Romneycare, it WASN'T unpopular.
Really because the only people that crossed party line were the Dems that voted against it.
Wikipedia wrote:PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[9] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[
That sounds pretty unpopular to me.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Then how do you explain Obamacare? Clearly he was able to pass unpopular legislation without the other party killing it out of hand. Don't get in the way of a good rant.
Ranters of the World Unite!
By sliding it into a different voting procedure that only required a simple majority vote using an archaic process to avoid the opposition entirely. He burned a lot of bridges pushing it through like that.
I knew he burned a lot of bridges I did not know how. What was this archaic process?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Yes I loved the Hulk stole it for me.
Spoiler:
Loki: "I am a demigod!"
(Hulk beating Loki like a three year old beating a stick on the ground) "Dummy god"
I lost my gak on that scene, but I saw it more like everyone else let Loki talk and Hulk...smash.
BACK On Topic .....So with the US now achieving Growth, how will this play? The lack of an agreed budget will upset markets and needless bring down the DOW Jones, coupled with the shock waves in Europe it could be disastrous when these shockwaves (Greece Etc) start hitting the US Shores.
The people in Greece have withdrawn huge amounts from Banks in the last 9 days and it's getting worse. Their is a huge liquidity issue and it's almost a quiet run on the bank. This will gain momentum then the ECB and IMF will have to step in and bingo, Greece Gone, Spain Follows.....Lots of problems on the horizon, the US can ill-afford weak leadership or partisan voting at this time. This bodes ill.
ShumaGorath wrote:It wasn't popular enough to get the votes it needed.
It was popular enough to get passed.
It didn't require a supermajority, but most bills don't.
I don't think you actually followed what happened very closely. The entire thing was written into a tax bill that was originally about veterans and which only required a majority. Congress then voted on the houses Trojan horse because it would be unfeasible for them to introduce their own legislation due to aforementioned fillibuster and a lack of an actual supermajority. One could argue that the whole thing belonged in a tax bill, but it's kind of a stretch.
Melissia wrote:So what you're saying is that the Republicans were hoisted by their own petard?
Please don't paraphrase me, just remember and talk about events as they actually were from now on. Obamacare has never been popular. It's needed and good but the public doesn't understand it, with most polls showing the vast majority of the electorate believing Fox news' lies about death panels and free healthcare for immigrants. Obamacare doesn't poll well because the media is yellow and people are idiots. That doesn't change the fact that it is unpopular (though the Rasmussen poll that showed 70% against was fake).
One things bugs me about American Politics, it's very binary. It's hard to compromise when one side is black and the other white. There are many shades, but the american political establishment is either Pro or anti anything, rather than tolerant of it with caveats or Pro subject if it is handled in the following way.
For an external observer, a Representative maybe slightly right of centre, or Ultra far right. Both get labelled Republicans and all that entails. The truth of politics is compromise, constantly undoing and redoing each other's work is not progress, it's stagnation or at least constantly wasted effort.
Maybe a third party would help to break up the partisan element in DC.
mwnciboo wrote:One things bugs me about American Politics, it's very binary. It's hard to compromise when one side is black and the other white. There are many shades, but the american political establishment is either Pro or anti anything, rather than tolerant of it with caveats or Pro subject if it is handled in the following way.
For an external observer, a Representative maybe slightly right of centre, or Ultra far right. Both get labelled Republicans and all that entails. The truth of politics is compromise, constantly undoing and redoing each other's work is not progress, it's stagnation or at least constantly wasted effort.
Maybe a third party would help to break up the partisan element in DC.
It would be nice, but it'd be almost impossible for a third party to actually exist in a meaningful fashion.
ShumaGorath wrote:It would be nice, but it'd be almost impossible for a third party to actually exist in a meaningful fashion.
Hell, it's almost impossible for even non-mainstream elements of the existing 2 parties to have much of an actual effect nowadays. Look at how Ron Paul was boned out of debates a few times; where he needed x % polled to participate, he got it, and they were like "lol no gtfo".
I think we well and truly broke our government this time. Which is exactly what we want, apparently; since we keep voting for it over and over again.
biccat wrote:
Some might wonder: if a bunch of budget bills got voted on in the Senate, why isn't there major news coverage of the issue, especially given that it's a slow news day? Others are quite clear in their answer: because it doesn't help Obama.
Another possible answer is that there have been many votes on budget proposals, and that the stories based on those votes on budget proposals attracted fewer and fewer hits as they became passe; eventually relegating them to the depths of not-the-front-page.
Of course if you really feel the need for "clarity" you're free to manufacture some for yourself, though as usual its basically just a convenient way for everyone else to note another head being placed deep in the sand.
mwnciboo wrote:One things bugs me about American Politics, it's very binary. It's hard to compromise when one side is black and the other white. There are many shades, but the american political establishment is either Pro or anti anything, rather than tolerant of it with caveats or Pro subject if it is handled in the following way.
For an external observer, a Representative maybe slightly right of centre, or Ultra far right. Both get labelled Republicans and all that entails. The truth of politics is compromise, constantly undoing and redoing each other's work is not progress, it's stagnation or at least constantly wasted effort.
Maybe a third party would help to break up the partisan element in DC.
Once upon a time and not that long ago, within the electorates memory, American parties were shades of grey...and things were basically better here; if you were white. The last part comes from my friend Angel who looks creepily like Emilio Zapata and commented that he was born 50 years too late /3 second pause, and the wrong color. Maybe you had to be there.
I genuinely feel that the current two party system is egging on a new civil war. I love this country and its history but I think that a multiparty prime ministerial system would benefit us. But I am borderline crazy so, you know...don't bother telling me.
The U.S. Senate rejected five competing budget plans as Republicans attempted to embarrass Democrats for failing to adopt a budget this year.
Taking advantage of an obscure Senate rule, Republicans today forced votes on their budget plans as well as one modeled on President Barack Obama’s tax-and-spending request.
And this is Bloomberg giving a better representation of the vote, in the first two sentences of the article. They even go the tax-and-spend route.
The most obvious political vote of the session was a 0-99 roll call on President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint — which was offered by Republicans. While that tally is sure to become fodder for campaign ads, Democrats dismissed it as a political stunt since there was no real policy language attached to the Obama budget.
Republican senators are expected to force a vote this week on President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget plan...
Of course, this...
A GOP aide said the White House argument on the Sessions bill is bogus. The staffer argued that whenever a budget proposal is put into legislative language, it only contains the yearly spending totals, not the entire accompanying policy language.
...is apparently the GOP argument, and its nonsense. Budgets, when put into legislative language, almost always expand due to the inclusion of policy language.
biccat wrote:[Some might wonder: if a bunch of budget bills got voted on in the Senate, why isn't there major news coverage of the issue, especially given that it's a slow news day? Others are quite clear in their answer: because it doesn't help Obama.
That's not actually true. As far as the "big 3" go, this story was covered by CNN and Fox. Fox's story was better and offered more information. I don't believe MSNBC covered it at all. That could be because of partisan bias, but it's also possible that it's because their site's integrated search is Bing and it just doesn't show up in search results because Bing is fueled by fail. It does tell me quite prominently that disco singer Donna Summer has died, however.
This whole thing reminds me of Illinois(I think), where the state legislator can immediatly put a bill up to vote and then the ayes and nays are shown from raised hands. If the bill seems to have a majority of ayes, the bill is passed and put into effect immediatly. Except that the House leader put a measure up to a floor vote, asked for ayes, then nays, looked around for a total of 3 seconds and stated the measure passed with the required 70 votes, he then banged the gavel and the bill took immediate effect, except that an ACTUAL vote just 10 mins prior had failed 53-47, so he effectivly passed a bill without enough votes....
Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.
mwnciboo wrote:One things bugs me about American Politics, it's very binary. It's hard to compromise when one side is black and the other white. There are many shades, but the american political establishment is either Pro or anti anything, rather than tolerant of it with caveats or Pro subject if it is handled in the following way.
For an external observer, a Representative maybe slightly right of centre, or Ultra far right. Both get labelled Republicans and all that entails. The truth of politics is compromise, constantly undoing and redoing each other's work is not progress, it's stagnation or at least constantly wasted effort.
Maybe a third party would help to break up the partisan element in DC.
Once upon a time and not that long ago, within the electorates memory, American parties were shades of grey...and things were basically better here; if you were white. The last part comes from my friend Angel who looks creepily like Emilio Zapata and commented that he was born 50 years too late /3 second pause, and the wrong color. Maybe you had to be there. I genuinely feel that the current two party system is egging on a new civil war. I love this country and its history but I think that a multiparty prime ministerial system would benefit us. But I am borderline crazy so, you know...don't bother telling me.
With this in mind, politicians (some at least) are intelligent creatures. I would definitely look to a cross party establishment of like minded individuals, and form a new party. How can a third party be excluded, this fundamentally is wrong. It's like Russia, you either vote Putin or not-Putin. Democrat or Republican, surely not every single american can be politically fairly represented by only two choices (Yes or No) there isn't even a third option of indifference or even a protest vote.
The third way, the Pragmatists way, you could call it "Libertarians" or "Liberty Party" or whatever, the principle being to be pragmatic. Obey the Law as sacrosanct, but allow all other things to be accepted (Gays, Gay parents, Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent design) Biology teaches Darwinism, and RE (Religious Education) covers Intelligent design. I did RE at school it was an easy subject and quite interesting, we had a great teacher, he taught us about every major religion, Shintoism, Taoism, Sikhism, Islam the whole lot, it was actually pretty interesting, Abrahamic Religions etc. All relevant and all good for understanding the world. I do admire your President for speaking out in favour of Same Sex parenting and backing his friends, any man who loves his friends and backs them to the hilt is honourable, at least to me. Equally this carries great weight with your Allies around the globe, to be a friend of America is beneficial , and to be an Ally is an honour. Instantly in response, Mitt Romney the Presidential Candidate pours the hate on the Gay community, it's so awful, live and let live. One of the greatest Americans of all time summed it up so well.
"Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured." – Mark Twain
Hell, as I said earlier, the republicans are essentially (as far as the actual influential powers go, not the average voter) a conglomeration of libertarians (or wannabe libertarians who are actually federalists, like Ron Paul), right wing capitalistas, and socially conservative religious authoritarians.
The groups rarely agree when the debate gets down to the details, so they avoid it by trying to avoid the details.
Does it annoy you though? Where I live I am campaigning on education, as a Child in Wales only has £3500 pa spent on their education when a Child in Scotland England or Northern Island has upto £7000.
This is because the Welsh Assembly siphon's off funds from central government to prop up QUANGO's and stupid Welsh Language programmes (like teaching newly arrived ethnic minorities Welsh as well as English).
To be born in Wales means your child has a significantly less chance of a good education and has less resources available to the schools for budgets, books and resources.
It actually makes my blood boil that my politicians are so bad, that they are making a whole generation fall behind in education based on their geographic location within the nation.
Ouze wrote:Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.
Fair enough, I was trying to find the story on Google News. Which apparently is also made of fail.
I avoid going to Fox and MSNBC whenever possible because they are memory hogs and have a bunch of useless flash.
Ouze wrote:Yeah, I skim the big 3 out of habit, but they're all really terrible. I like RCP a lot; I usually read whatever Robert Samuelson writes because it's always well thought out. Some of those guys are real toolboxes though.
I know the RCP guys, they're based not far from from my apartment. Not bad dudes, but I think they're a bit conflicted in their mission.
So to dispute this, you post a bunch of opinion columns repeating the information from the original dodgy news report. All of which fail to explain that the bill in question was a Republican summary of what they believed Obama's budget to be, and not actually Obama's budget.
Which basically means, cute html formatting aside, your argument is to repeat the original nonsense claim. Good job, footsoldier, keep shouting the Republican attack line, and hope the opposition gets bored with explaining why that's nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BarBoBot wrote:obama had majorities in both the house and senate for 2 years after he was elected.... and he never got a budget passed then either.
He never intended to... a budget would constrain his spending, and all he knows how to do is to throw tax payer money around like its monopoly money.
Umm, you don't understand how budgets function in government. Not having one approved doesn't mean you just get to spend money wherever you please, so your claim above is basically nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Then how do you explain Obamacare? Clearly he was able to pass unpopular legislation without the other party killing it out of hand. Don't get in the way of a good rant.
Long story short, the Democrats bypassed debate on the bill by taking a house bill on IRS reform and completely revising it to actually be the content of the senate healthcare reform act. Through some outrageous compromises with Democratic blue dogs (including the infamous Nebraska exemption) they got all 60 Democrats to agree to vote to end discussion on the bill, and vote to approve their bill. They then entered a process of reconciliation with the already passed house bill allowing them to finalise a revised healthcare bill that avoided any further fillibuster shenanigans, that stripped out all the compromises to the blue dogs, such as the infamous Nebraska compromise.
Basically, it's the kind of thing you can only do if one party and all it's major players dedicate all their time and political capital to pushing through. Doing the same each year for the annual budget would be impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Please don't paraphrase me, just remember and talk about events as they actually were from now on. Obamacare has never been popular. It's needed and good but the public doesn't understand it, with most polls showing the vast majority of the electorate believing Fox news' lies about death panels and free healthcare for immigrants. Obamacare doesn't poll well because the media is yellow and people are idiots. That doesn't change the fact that it is unpopular (though the Rasmussen poll that showed 70% against was fake).
One of the funny things is that if you poll people on each individual component of Obamacare, they each come up as popular, and most as overwhelmingly popular. But if you ask about Obamacare, people are opposed.
In part it's due to FOX News and the Republicans running a really nasty, lie filled campaign against it, and it's also in part due to people loving the idea of fixing stuff, but freaking out when they actually get to the point of doing it. But a large part of the issue with Obamacare's unpopularity is that no Democrat actually stood up and championed the bill - no-one got out there and said "this is what this bill contains, and this is why it is important to do this".
A lot of people argued for the need for healthcare reform, but no-one argued for the need for this bill. It's no wonder somethings unpopular when no-one ever defended it.
Sometimes I think the solution would be to increase the number of congress and senate seats to 3 or 4 times the size to cut back on games like these from happening and actually feel like I have representation in government.
.....So with the US now achieving Growth, how will this play? The lack of an agreed budget will upset markets and needless bring down the