Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

If all those Democratic Senators would stop obstructing the President's vision we could get something done.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

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.

**PhantomViper**

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...

**Poppabear**

Nope, refusing to engage, this crap just gives me migraines.

To bad Obama has a free ticket for another four years. So I why does it matters?

Romney.... please.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Poppabear**

Ohhhhhh, your from Texas, now its all coming together

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**LoneLictor**

Republicans submitted a budget that wasn't Obama's, then voted against it, then said it was Obama's fault.

US Politics is scary.

**Poppabear**

Lol... Texans.

**biccat**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

**LordofHats**

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.

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?

**Frazzled**

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.

**DemetriDominov**

Politics still haven't changed I see. I'd be less angry with Obama, and more angry with Congress not even really trying to fix this country.

**ShumaGorath**

biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
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**

ShumaGorath wrote:
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???

**ShumaGorath**

LordofHats wrote:
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.

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**

Why didn't the Democrats? You know, Obama's own party people?

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**biccat**

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**

biccat wrote:
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.

**biccat**

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.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
biccat wrote:
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?

**AustonT**

ShumaGorath wrote:

The republicans submitted the presidents budget except the document was different.

Ergo it wasn't his budget.

Ergo this thread is bs and [color=red]you are lying.

Poppabear wrote:Ohhhhhh, your from Texas, now its all coming together

Poppabear wrote:Lol... Texans.

These comments are useless, if meant as insults they violate this sits rules, if not your version of not engaging resembles schoolyard goading.

**Frazzled**

One can be positive and believe they are overawed by the greatness of Texas. After all to know us is to love us. Just ask Mexico.

**ShumaGorath**

AustonT wrote:
Video

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.

**Frazzled**

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?

**d-usa**

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.

**Frazzled**

Yep. I'm tired of the partisan hacks.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**biccat**

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.