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.

ShumaGorath wrote:the democrats had a planned date for introducing this bill already (without it being fake)

They did?

Oh, no, wait. They didn't.

Sen. Reid wrote:We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it's done, we don't need to do it.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not expecting good things from it. I think Borat was better than the director really intended. It was kind of a mistake.

Ouch. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Borat was pretty terrible with only a few amusing moments.

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.

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.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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...

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Because when Obama passed Romneycare, it WASN'T unpopular.

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.

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.

Yes I loved the Hulk stole it for me.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

So what you're saying is that the Republicans were hoisted by their own petard?

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:

Melissia wrote:So what you're saying is that the Republicans were hoisted by their own petard?

Please don't paraphrase me

I wasn't, I was interpreting

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.

You know... CAPITALISM!

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.

biccat wrote:
Totally true. Except

As reported by The Washington Times, initially the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected the proposed Obama Budget for 2013 by a vote of 99-0.

Basically copy-pasta.

biccat wrote:
where

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.

Did you not read these?

biccat wrote:
it's

The only supporting article:

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.

biccat wrote:
false.

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.

Wow, MSNBC's site is a clusterfeth.

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....