How about a BUDGET REID!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lazy Dems.

Budgets Originate in the House. If they would pass a serious budget, and not the Ryan farce budget "Path to Poverty", it might go up for a vote.

Oh wait, they are too busy voting on Abortion, Fast and Furious, and Fake Healthcare Reform Repeals.

Here's to hoping that by this time next year, the Republican House, Republican Senate and President Romney have agreed to a budget for whenever the fiscal year starts.

It will be a nice change of pace from the last 1113 days since the Senate last passed a budget.

Redsox..And here I thought they had exported all the trailers from Mass. Guess I was mistaken. A perfect example of the bottom of the gene pool!

LOL -- The GOP knew if they didn't they would lose their GOVERNMENT CHECKS.

Boehner must have twisted t a lot of arms.

Actually Jack you may want to look at the "privatization"of education. Here in Arizona, a state the is dominated by Teabaggers in both houses and Governorship has a sales tax rate of nearly 10%, high property taxes and ranks at the bottom in education. Charter Schools have done worse than those 'publicly funded. If you want to fix your schools you might want to look at the state level first!

The NEA is very weak here since this is a right to work state.

jacksbackinblack W.T.F. Does that have to do with anything? Troll on. Man the Idiots are out today.

Baby Boner, you show your lack of understanding of how things work. Pretty typical of a libby though. Don't bother looking for facts.

Classic libby with their had up their butt.

"Taking this issue off the table will keep the larger focus on jobs, the economy, and President Obama's failed economic policies," the aide said. "That's where Republicans win and Democrats lose."

Yeah because your not there to help the American people win or anything.... /sarcasm

But I guess you wouldn't have a good reason why your party stalled everything else otherwise.

Obama saved and created over 4 million jobs, made sure the economy grew each and every quarter (google GDP chart), and brought jobless claims down and the unemployment rate down.

If you wanted better results then blame the Republicans that blocked, stalled, and obstructed Obama the entire time he's been in office. That's whose to blame for the lousy economy and jobs.

Here's to hoping that by this time next year, the Republican House, Republican Senate and President Romney have agreed to a budget for whenever the fiscal year starts.

It will be a nice change of pace from the last 1113 days since the Senate last passed a budget.

Here's hoping you actually take your lithium and become a productive member of society. How your parents even put up with such a deviant is beyond me. Unless of course, they were deviants themselves.

Freak.

You'll see this a lot from Democrats who aren't intellectually able to compete on these threads. When they lose a point or can't google a retort, it's name calling time. This guy must lose a lot.

Coming from a chronic re-reg.

Yea, you're absolutely brilliant.

I love Republicans who think they are smarter than Democrats when:

Tax cuts didn't create jobs, it concentrated the wealth for the 1%.

They screamed "deficits don't matter" and now we are in this mess.

Use words like socialist, communist and don't know what they mean.

Think they are really fixing Medicare by privatizing it.

Ruken

How about an education? Wait...idiocy must just be in your genetics.

Ruken, how about just admitting that something worked.

Baby Boehner

WRONG!

House is the originator of all spending Bills. A budget is a spending blueprint, not a spending bill.

Budgets are proposed by the President and sent to Congress, meaning BOTH houses where Both houses work in it. Eventually a compromise version is supposed to be reached. The Senate led by Democrat Majority Leader refuses even talk about a budget. The correct question is Why?

Clearly it is better politically not to approve a budget then to approve one your members must go on record voting for.

If there is no budget, it is easier to slip otherwise unpassable legistlation and spending, because without a blueprint to refer back to to say no, who is to say what was or wasn't supposed to be done.

The correct question is Why? DB Akron, have the Republicans stopped adding NON PERTINENT amendments to any bills? That would be a no. Every single Republican bill, amendment, CUTS benefits to the poor, elderly, disabled, increases TAX DEDUCTIONS to the 2% AND INCREASES tax on the poor, middle class, the elderly and the disabled. Also puts women back to when the Constitution was written.

Eric: you apparently have not received the latest GOP talking points about what words mean. Overt racism is wrong, you must be subtle, so subtle you may not even realize you are racist.

When talking about the President of the United States, refer to Barack Obama as "that man."

He is not black, he is a socialist.

He is not a N&**ER, he is a communist.

The words communist and socialist can be used interchangeably, or, even better, back-to-back with "community organizer" thrown in for good measure.

Thus, you can get your message to those who know how to read your words, without actually sounding like the racist person you know all Republicans really are.

Jack, I'm just dropping a line here before I head home from work, but you seem awfully good at pinning everything on the President as if he exists in a vacuum. Every idea or process he tries to implement is stymied by an obstructionist congress.

Before you start ranting about Dems controlling the Senate, see the record number of filibusters.

Before you start bringing up how Sen. Reid stops things from coming up for a vote, review some of the Riders the Republicans attach to those bills.

Before you bring up the supposed 2 year Supermajority the Dems had, I'd like you to post the 60 Democrats that were in the Senate at the time. Not the 58+2.

I'd also like to point out that the Democrats achieved something historic in political terms with their majority (PPACA) that averted a disaster years down the road. Is it perfect? Not at all. It's a start, and it's the best that could be done at the time. Personally I (and most Americans, I believe from polling) preferred the Single Payer Option.

You're sticking right with the GOP party line though. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, then blame the President for nothing getting done and things being in the crapper.

What gets me is Sen. McConnell (sp?) told Americans up front what their priority was. He informed everyone that their #1 priority wasn't jobs, wasn't the economy, wasn't the deficit, wasn't anything other then making sure President Obama was a one-term President.

If you view the actions of Congressional Republicans since those remarks, it's pretty apparent that they've stuck 100% to that.

Want a prime example? Take a look at Rep. Bohener's recent comments regarding the sequester he agreed to. I'll let you in on a little secret, he's blaming President Obama for them (the Republicans) voting for it.

Hmmm. The last time Boehner had worked out an agreement the TPRepubs didn't play nice and voted it down. Will this time be different?

Hmmmm The last time our President had worked out a budget it was so assinine that everyone voted it down.

Dirp - you are a racist. Knock off the N word talk. Why is it that the only ones who mention our President's race are the left leaning ones?

Hahaha, so what's that Boehner? It's not a loss for Teapublicans to refuse to pay the bills they incurred by raising the debt ceiling, or worse to have our credit rating destroyed--again--costing the American people more money due to higher interest rates on our debt?

What feeble-minded voters will fall for this ruse -- That the obstructionist GOP/TP who have failed to deliver on their promises of jobs, Jobs, JOBS before the 2010 mid-term election, want to focus on the economy and jobs? Oh riiight, the rightwing base will fall for it.

DB Akron -- Why the attack on what Baby Boehner posted?

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.

Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the people and not from state governments.

I would give you credit for the parts you had right, except you had to be a douche about it. Now the problem with the Teapublican House failing to represent the wishes of the people means they just need to be thrown out.

Curious how both parties could come together and work toward a common goal when everyone involved has a private interest in doing so, keeping their paychecks coming. But creating a budget both parties could approve of is not in the personal interests of either party. This makes me think we should set up some sort of bonus program where Senate and House members get a bonus for passing legislation that actually works to start balancing the budget. It would have to be large because oil, pharmaceutical, and financial corporations are paying them large amounts to do just the opposite. Again, fascinating to see both parties compromise when they are personally affected by the legislation and do just the opposite when it involves the American peoples best interests.

DB Akron

Okay DB, you tell us. Given that a budget would be meaningless in an all but collapsing environment, that it would probably take six months of legislative bickering, and given that the GOP would/will use any vote to it's advantage even though it created this f@#king mess, would YOU be fool enough to put forth a budget as a Democrat? Ryan did because it fits the Tea Party agenda of slash cutting all social support mechanisms and furthering the dysfunction already caused by "starve the beast" mentalities.

If you answer honestly, you would not.

Here we are bashing the Republicans when they have given every American a gift more precious than life itself. With their denying the years 2000 to 2008 having ever existed and by denying that President Bush (a name never to be spoken aloud) likewise ever existed, they have inadvertently erased 8 years off the life of every American of whatever political stripe. Thank you, Republicans, for restoring my youthful exuberance and never again having to study or know that the Republican Party existed during those nonexistent years. All is now erased from memory! How Egyptian!!!

I received this email from my friend majoring in Law, in Eau Claire, WI.

---------------------------------

...And I've come across far too many selfish, regressive right-wingers that say they're politically actively and proudly selfish to shrink our federal government into near-non-existence so they won't have to pay more taxes.

They said they will NEVER commit to long-term planning in national or state budgets. If they did that, that would prevent them from dismantling the public sector. They said they want to starve it out of existence, which is why they will not agree to any medium or long term budgets in Congress.

I told them that if the Federal government reduced taxes then the States would increase it to make up for the shortfall just to keep the infrastructures of their cities and towns going.

What was their typical reply?

They said they would shrink their state governments as well, to reduce their taxes. So if you eliminate the federal and the state ...what are you left with? "City-State" municipalities? ...Governed by whom? They said they would lead these, "micro-governments." (What on earth is a 'micro-government'? Is that the modern term for a little kingdom? A fiefdom? A land of warlords or hard-line ideologues running their own kingdoms based on how many bibles and weapons they have to enforce their laws of their land?)

What kind of nation with that be like, with no more, "United," in the "States of America," where only the fundamentalist Christian religion rules over all that exists in these thousands of little 'micro-governments' bristling with citizens' firearms, and no rules, no more consumer protections to regulate or give oversight to any businesses owned and operated solely by the wealthy and powerful that proclaim that God is only on their side?

RedDevPS,

BREAKING NEWS - Congress finally worked one day this year!!!

Yes but only to kick the can down the road a little ways that is not work. Here is an idea if congress does not balance a budget then they should not be able to be re-elected to that position. No matter who's side is said to be obstructing. It is funny up until 2010 when it was a Democratic Congress nothing got done then either who can they blame that on as you see they don't like to talk about that. They only like to discuss from 2010 to current times when it is Harry Reid that keeps not bringing bills to the Senate floor that have been passed in the house it is the Senate Democrats that are the obstructionists.

Govt. workers gone wild....I don't guess these Govt. workers have a budget.

I need a job with the GSA, 44million in bonuses g*damn thats outrageous. One employee received a $79,000 bonus, another received $115,000 in overtime pay. 77 conferences/aka tropical vacations, the one for 2012 is called smart pay training conference running Tuesday to Thursday this week, this one at the Opryland convention center. Where the hell do I get an application at? I want some of that overtime pay, and bonus pay, from the taxpayers dollars. And here I was thinking the country is broke. WTF, is my stimulus money Obama?

PS, Many other employees received bonuses worth $50,000 a piece must be fing sweet.

no, they want to keep their seats, but they have to vote and ottis isnt a strong leader.

It's important to look bipartisan on one or two issues to make Americans forget that they've obstructed Obama the entire time he's been in office.

Don't worry, Obama gets re-elected and our credit will get downgraded again. Before Obama finishes his second term (assuming he's re-elected), the Chinese will own us lock, stock and barrel.

Don't worry, Obama gets re-elected and our credit will get downgraded again.

That was the Super Committee's doing.

Way to fail at history that's only a few years old.

It's an election year and the Conservative don't want to upset the apple cart. So they'll play "kick the can" instead!

Not so fast. The Speaker of The House doesn't speak for Congress. Boner has made deals in the past but was unable to deliver the votes to support him. A promising development but certainly no guarantee that the Teapublicans will not try to push the economy over the cliff again.

The new face of fear, John Boehner. Teapublicans knew they would get out-flanked to the center on this issue.

C'mon,"taking our country back" crowd, you could have held out for Ryan style cuts but you didn't. What's the matter, cat got your...intestinal fortitude?

Conservative principles, they work...until election time! No wonder...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

If all those pork-barrel idiots would stop the wars and stop funding unneeded tanks and planes we could balance the budget in 2 years.BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!

Yeah, twice for the same PresiDEBT would be disastrous for Team Obama, Feisty!

It's a savvy political move. I'm not a Boehner fan but he knows Romney will win in a landslide. He also knows that his party will retain the House and perhaps gain control of the Senate.

Simply put, he doesn't want to give the failed President anything that may give him a little traction heading into what will be the second biggest landslide in modern history. That would be giving Obama the opportunity to use stupid soundbites such as the "Party of No' and "obstructionists".

They're making Obama look horrible at the one thing everyone (his supporters only actually) thinks he's good at...campaigning.

You should know that the end is near when the braindead like Coked up Roberts makes such asinine statements such as "Romney went to Poland to attract the racist vote".

That's when you know there's no gas left in the tank.

Conservative Rebellion-

Sorry, But Obama does not need any help making himself look horrible. Obama has single handed done everything wrong and has kept on doing it for 4 years. If he could get a job in private sector, he would have been fired before the end of a 60 day probationary period. I cannot believe the president of the United States, being so self destructive, totally incompetent, totally inexperienced, NOT knowledgable, totally NO character, totally dishonest, totally Irresponsible and totally unpatriotic! He is not even a good puppet for George Soros and Warren Buffett.

I concur.

Fuzzy-0457.....

Yep, and Mr. Obama is "jealous" that Mrs. Obama, with her entourage of folks, attended the Olympics and spent American taxpayer $$$. I wonder if Mrs. Obama retrieved the Winston Churchill bust.

I can't wait to hear "Screeching" Bill at the DNC. I wonder if he has been told to use Mr. Obama's "teleprompter" in order not to go off cue again.

Sad day for ObamaTeam......Mr. Obama gave HIS campaign some of HIS money. Time for another $ 40,000/plate stand up dinner in Bollywood if the campaign is in that much of a donation distress.

Fiesty Redhead,

We haven't heard from you in a while you must know that the Lib's are in deep s88t and then you say

Guess he & his cohorts didn't want to be responsible for another credit downgrade in an election year...

that was all Obama's doing but nice try to spin it the other way. Just because you say something does not make it so. I know you Lib's think that is does. I am thankful the public is starting to realize that Obama is full of s88t too he has done nothing to help the economy quite the opposite in fact with his health care tax. Do you know that because of that tax people that need services from Medicaid/Medicare are now being told that Medicaid will no longer pay for all kinds of services and prescriptions? I thought this was going to help us all it looks as though it is as the Rep's said and that health care will be limited under this system. Man what a great job Obama did in f88king up a system that was already f88ked up but he did it he found a way to make it worse. Don't try and deny these facts my mother is on Medicaid and they told her that she will now not have access to medications she has been taking for over ten years oh and you cannot see a doctor and pay out of your pocket anymore as she does with one of her doctors because now Medicaid will not cover the prescription costs if she does that. What a great f88king fix. NOT.

VOTE OBAMA OUT 2012

...but remember, according to Republicans, cutting the debt will create jobs........and cutting taxes will create jobs........and building a pipeline for oil that isn't even ours that we will s

(pssst.....we all know that all this will do is stall the economy like a cheap Ford Pinto like in England)

cutting the debt will create jobs........and cutting taxes will create jobs. CBO has rated every single Republican jobs bill as FAIL. Actually INCREASES job losses, and INCREASE profits for the 2%.

Damned straight cause its important to take people's food stamps away during this recession..........

Hey, Republicans know that those leeches will just use the food stamps to eat and they can't have that. Next thing you know, the poor will want to live.

Baby Boehner

Jobs? You don't need jobs... All you need to do is give the rich more of your money.

Did i say rich? I meant "Job Creator"

Am I missing something here? Job Creators are Rich or become Rich or Rich people create Jobs. Let's stop with the Rich Vs Poor wars.

If you gots too many poor you gots nobody to buy your product and you don't stay rich for long. The rich declared war on the poor 30 years ago when they claimed trickle down economics was the way to go. The poor are finally fighting back in their endeavor to become the middle class once more.

The middle class is (or was ) the real job creators.

Comon Mike...Didya make it beyond E-2? be a good teabagger and pull yourself up by your bootstraps...

Um, Torpedo, I beleive you misinterpreted what Mike was saying about the do nothing congress. ;-)

Obama/biden 2012

OOPS. My Bad apologies!

your right top drum, we need more revenue and its time to raise the tax rates and get this country going, but, atlast, we have the republican no. no i wont raise taxes on the wealthy, they are the only ones worth saving. screw the rest of the americans, we only work for the rich. rip out social security and medicare that way they'll all die sooner or we can put them in privitized prisons for more cheap labor and the young ones will throw in the military to fight all the new wars we will create. and when the military gets ol, will thrown on the streets, get rid of the VA and hope they die soon or end up in labor prisons.

and what about the children, we need younger and cheaper labor, rip down the schools, fire the teachers, take the money and put it into more wars. if they get sick throw em in the alley and let them die.

that my friends are todays republican party members and their puppet masters, and yes it will take place if they are re-elected!

Just as its' been the last 4 yrs. Nothing new here. Were you around between 2001 and 2008? Maybe you have amnesia.

Calm down, and take your meds. The doctor will see you soon. You are obviously delusional and in need of immediate psychiatric care.

Will be no different in the future.

@kr-2875346

You going to raise the taxes on the 50% that currently do not pay any?

BTW your a complete idiot.

So once again, I have to ask the question..........if taxing the rich is too extreme, then how much taxes do you think you'll be able to squeeze out of poor homeless people? (This is an excercise in extremes as some of you apparently don't get it). Answers anyone? Please try to be legit and not petty.

Hey Angry....the wealthiest 400 families have more money than the poorest 50% of the country. And if you're talking federal income taxes, the rich don't pay those. It's all "carried interest" and "capital gains." How do you think someone who makes 20 million dollars a year pays less than 15% in taxes? I pay more than that, and I make less than 1% of that income.

I can understand your thoughts there; 4 years of surpluses wiped out with 8 years of Bush/Cheney. I like being embarrassed all day long with that record!

Stop President Clinton, your embarrassing yourself.

Jack,

You're actually embarrassing yourself....

Taco Bob, I am not sure what you are smoking there bud, certainly something other than Marlboros, but there has never ..... repeat after me, NEVER been a surplus at any time in recent history. Under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, it was ALMOST achieved once or twice.

But the concept of surpluses is a Democratic fairy tale courtesy of accounting tricks from Slick Willie with the Social Security Trust fund.

Where's the budget, Mr. Obama ? Is it in the same place as the shovel-ready jobs you talked about ??

Do you have a long-range financial plan, Mr. President ??? Where is it ????

He submitted a budget. However, the Republican changed it and it was voted down. Check your facts.

Check YOUR facts, that both the Republicans and 100% of the Democrats turned Obamas budget down. Stop changing the FACTS libs. It ain't flushing!

The agreement allows lawmakers to avoid the specter of a shutdown with just weeks to go until Election Day. They want SOME people to show up on election day. As long as it isn't the 98%, who normally sit on their duffs.

STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE! The Republicans can't do that. I believe they already have the reconciliation bill ready to go for invading Iran after January 20, 2013.

Well, Chuck, to be fair---neither party can stop it. The GOP under Bush spent waaaaay too much, and then when the Dems took over Congress under Bush, the spending increased, and then increased again under Obama and the Democrats.

As I recall, it was the Dems and President Obama who promised to go against any balanced-budget amendment, which is what we obviously need to keep politicians from BOTH parties from spending us into bankruptcy.

STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE! The Republicans can't do that. I believe they already have the reconciliation bill ready to go for invading Iran after January 20, 2013.

We want have to worry. Willard is going to lose big time.

Mike, check your facts. The deficit actually went down under Obama. Easy to blame him for spending when he inherited a government that was spending 1.3T more than it took in every year. And if you think the recession we had was bad, think about what it would have looked like if they balanced the budget entirely on spending cuts like Republicans wanted. That's 1.3 trillion dollars out of the economy. Full blown depression.

will Speaker Boehner's caucus back him? He has no control of the Tea Party rookies. Nor does he have control of some of the old guys who have decided to latch on to the Tea Party fiasco.

Hi Jody, well Boehner should be worried about the Tea Toy Party in the House and I'm sure we'll be hearing from Mitch "the turle" McConnell very soon, too! Just remember Boehner, the heads you step upon on the way up are usually attached to the ass you'll have to kiss on your way down! ;-)

Obama/Biden 2012

Jody, I think they are goin got let this one go through. It's too close to the election for another complete filibuster after the announcement that an agreement has been made. Their not going to take the chance of being called out on this in November.

That said, I fully expect Rep. Cantor to make some kind of comments and undercut Rep. Boehner through the tea party media. He'll probably something along the lines of, "He gave in too quickly and allowed too much money to be allocated for 6 months. But we agreed for the benefit of the American people. Make no mistake that we will strongly challenge this in the Spring. But for us to do that you need to elect every Republican so we can have true leadership (ME . . ME . . ME!) in the Whitehouse and Congress."

Cantor wants Boner's job.

Sane Central, from what I understand, Cantor is in danger of losing his seat. The guy who got Tim Kaine elected Gov. is running the campaign against Cantor. Doesn't look good for Cantor.

As much as I would like to see Cantor lose his job, I don't want him replaced with someone worse.

Sigh... who are the fools who elect these nutcases?

Steve -

Congress deciding which program gets how much money is called writing the budget. Not a thing that the dems have proven to be particularly good at, in their current incarnation.

And it is compulsory, by the way....not that you would see that in recent years...

Chuck -

OK then - the republicans add "non germaine" amendments to "every single bill". Let us assume that you are actually correct in that.

The House then passes the bill, and it goes to the senate. Then what happens? Reid wont even allow it to come up for debate, let alone a vote.

The question is why, exactly?

If these amendments are so bad, then why wont they allow a debate on the floor of the Senate? Reid and the Dems have total control of that body, so what would the harm be? If anything, this represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate how bad these amendments are, with no fear of it accidently getting passed into law.

That is so basic that any elected representative should be able to see the opportunity.

Yet, they dont do this. Why?

While I happen to think that the Dems are wrong, in no way do I think they are stupid, so there must be a reason.

The reason, applying logic, must be that these amendments are not all that bad - otherwise the dems would be attacking on all fronts every last one of them.

Exactly, nottalkingpoints. Just like the many other bills that Harry Reid has shelved in the Senate. Seems to me that if they were as bad as the Dems make out, and don't have a chance to pass, then let them be debated on, voted on, and put to rest. I think that Harry is AFRAID that some of them WILL pass, and he is scared to let the GOP look good!

So let's see . . . you are arguing that it's better to spend time having bills debated on the floor that have no chance of passing and wasting time and taxpayer dollars in the process than NOT wasting resources?

Hmmm . . . the House of Representatives voted on party lines to repeal PPACA thirty-three times. According to CBS, those purely political actions cost all of us about 50 million (representing two weeks of time spent and costs for time calculated by the CBO). The Senate has sat on a few bills that have no chance of passing, I'd guess that saved the US taxpayer at least 50 million in useless debate.

Frankly, I think Sen Reid was doing the smart thing here since if they had been debated they would have failed. If they had been debated and amendments cut, then the Bill would have to go back to the House, and then to reconciliation. More delays, more debate, more cost with probably the same end result.

So then we'd have no end result, more finger pointing, and the American taxpayer on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars that could better go elsewhere (like infrastructure or the deficit) but instead went to pay for politicians' posturing. Yep, that would be a smart move now, wouldn't it?

But at least it was done by procedure and not rammed through like Obamacare.

Matthew-

You miss my point....

The dems, by reason of their majority in the senate, have nothing to risk by allowing things to come up for at least debate, but they still wont.

In fact, they have much to gain by that action. The failure of republican ideas in public would have given the dems a major chip to play in the current election cycle.

But, Reid wont go there, so the question remains - why?

notalkingpoints, it may be a quid pro quo for all the bills the Republican members of the Senate refused to allow to the floor via filibuster/cloture votes. Exactly why should Sen. Reid allow the Republican bills to come to the floor when the minority party in the Senate wouldn't allow over 100 Democratic bills to come to the floor?

Doesn't this kind of hit at that "let them be debated" position you've advocated?

So wasting 500 million on political posturing is ok as long as it is "done by procedure" usmc201?

(side note - if indeed you are or were in the USMC, thank you for your service)

" No President ever has been re-elected with these kind of economic numbers."

And yet he will be, which speaks volumes about the state of the GOP.

Maybe, maybe not. But if the Dems don't hold on to the Senate, it won't matter much.

The actual polling numbers aren't looking so hot for the President right now. Usually the "undecided" in these polls go with the challenger for the most part. Could be bad for Team Obama, and the economic numbers aren't expected to improve over the summer and early fall, only get worse.

what happened,

1-Sep 30 is the end of FY2012 so if a new spending authorization for FY2013 isn’t passed or if the current spending is isn’t authorized (using a CR) to continue until some future date the government will shut down.

2-EO’s cannot be used to spend – only congress can authorize spending.

Dennis

The National debt is about $700 billion away from maxing out the debt ceiling. Do you know what happens when the debt ceiling maxes out? The government shuts down.

Everything else is BS if Obama leads us to the point where the Government will shut down because Obama is signing the spending Bills Congress created at Obama's request and puts on his desk.

So since you don't seem to comprehend the above, I will post another Obama speech that support his other speeches that condemn him as a failed leader.

In February 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama stated:

I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay. And that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.

"Remarks at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit." By Barack Obama. Government Printing Office, February 23, 2009. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/presdocs/2009/DCPD200900102.htm

As this speech clearly demonstrates, Obama is condemning his own actions as irresponsible.

The debt ceiling is expected to be reached in Dec or Jan.

What was agreed to between Reid and Boehner was a plan for a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund the government until early next year – it has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. The 2 chambers will vote on this CR plan in September.

It should also be noted that any increase to increase the debt ceiling is needed for money that has already been spent – not to allow additional spending.

You keep saying that Obama spends but only Congress can spend. Why did the Republican controlled House approve spending last Dec that was more than $1 trillion more than projected receipts?

How about the Romney/Ryan budget plan that will increase the debt by an addition $7 trillion by 2022 and does not balance the budget until 2040 and that is based on an unemployment level of 3% which the US hasn't seen in 50 years.

An excellent analysis from last year discussing the facts behind the FY 2012 budget spins can be read at: http :/ /factcheck.org/2011/02/budget-spin/

Note that some of the arguments stated and disproved then are still essentially being used to day.

Obama talks about voting against any debt ceiling increases and his 2006 speech before the Senate explains why they are bad for this country, but and its a huge but;

Obama has requested and got the debt ceiling raised to $16.7 trillion and with his executive order spending he has the National debt pushing above the $15.9 trillion mark as of today.

Obama talks a great game, but his actions on the field are those of a man who doesn't know a thing about the position he holds. Even his own words condemn him as a failed leader over and over.

what happened,

EO’s cannot be used to spend – only congress can authorize spending.

That's funny because its getting reported here on liberal MSNBC that Obama is using EO's to create and fund programs like the one reported last week to fund only African American educational programs.

Now why would MSNBC lie to us if it wan't true?

He can use funds already approved by Congress but Presidents cannot fund anything not approved by Congress.

How about a link that supports your claim?

Dennis

How about you becoming an adult and getting yourself informed.

YOU can defend a man whose own words condemn him as irresponsible and a failed leader no matter how much you try because of one simple reality that is a part of human beings make up.

You can't trust a persons whose actions are different from their words. Obama's words scream out, don't trust me, my actions speak volumes over my words. Here's an example.

Obama is pushing his tax reform hard in this campaign. If its so good, then why didn't he ever propose it to his democratically controlled congress when he could have gotten it passed?

Why did he remain silent on the issue until after he lost control of the House and knew he couldn't get it passed?

He's now claiming in his TV ads his tax reform will create middle class jobs. Well, what is he saying? That the middle class didn't need jobs when the democrats had control of Congress and that why it wasn't brought up and passed?

Obama has a honey tongue, but beyond that, he's as empty and hollow as a bag of hot air.

Do your research and you will see that spending under Obama is the lowest since IKE. Reagan spent more and that is a fact.

A summary:

Obama spending binge never happened

Rex Nutting

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

May 22, 2012|Rex Nutting, MarketWatch

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

"Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget."

job1

Funny you should post that nonsense. August 2, 2011 our government was going to shut down when Obama's spending reached the debt ceiling of $14.2 trillion. Obama requested and got the debt ceiling raised to $16.7 trillion.

Its isn't even August and as of today our national debt is surpassing $15.9 trillion.

Since Obama is having his spending cut off at the knees, he's resorted to issuing executive orders to fund the programs he's trying to buy the election with.

You can try, but you can't defend a man whose own words condemn him as irresponsible and a failed leader.

As Obama once told the world, " I never earned it nor do I deserve it and there were others who deserved it more." Who would have ever guess he was talking about his reelection when he uttered those words.

Job1 you are confusing SPENDING with SPENDING INCREASES. Two different things. And yes, I will grant you that the INCREASES in the rate of spending have come down. However, actual dollars being SPENT has increased. To think of it another way, let's just say that someone has a variable rate mortgage. Let's say that last year their mortgage went from $1000 per month to $1200 per month, an increase of 20%. Then let's say that this year the mortgage increased to $1300 per month. The rate of the increase is only 8.34%. Is that homeowner better off with a slower rate of growth or not? Or is he still out the $300 more a month that his mortgage costs him compared to 2 years ago?

Or, would you like to be making $50k per year and get a raise of 20%, or be making $100k per year and get a raise of 10%????

I, for one who voted for Obama last election, have found what comes out of his mouth may be eloquent but he can't follow it up with leadership or conviction. I can't vote for him again, he is a bigger failure than Bush.

See what happens when you confront the Dems with their poster-child's OWN words?? It is like a vacuum--they just ignore it like he never said it, as does the media beholden to the Teflon-President.

And JOB1, with us out of Iraq, shouldn't spending actually be REDUCED?

Someone has to give you people the facts.

Gee, Job1, how will you recognize something so utterly unfamiliar to you? You said that spending was lowest since Ike. Prove it. Reagan spent MORE than Obama? Are you nuts?

especially when you post such obvious lies like "spending is the lowest since Ike" and "Reagan spent more". Just kind of hard to take you very seriously after posting that complete lie and garbage.

You Obama supporters have ignored one simple fact in trying to defend Obama's spending.

No one forced him to sign the spending Bills his Democratically controlled Congress placed on his desk.

You crucify Bush for signing the spending Bills his Democratically controlled congress put on his desk, but you try and make excuse after excuse for Obama for doing exactly the same thing as Bush..

Life doesn't work that way. Grow up, as you are acting like children.

mikehataway

The only way our national debt can happen is that Obama is signing more spending bills, than creating revenues to operate his government with.

The national debt in 2008, was $10.0 trillion. The national debt as of today is $15.9 trillion and growing.

That's because Obama is signing those spending bills.

You can't defend Obama when his own words condem his actions as irresponsible and that of a failed leader no matter how you try and spin the facts.

Umm, you have confused me with someone else--I NEVER have defended PresiDEBT Obama!!!

Okay Mike and What, Read real slow so you can get your facts:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Okay Job1, I read your posts and your links. They support your claim, as I had already admitted in post 26.3 that the rate of spending INCREASES had gone down. But in your post #26.1, your first paragraph says clearly that spending under Obama is the lowest since Ike, and that Reagan spent more. Both those are completely false. The size of the federal budget today (or continuing resolutions, since the Dems won't vote on a budget) is much greater now than in Ike's or Reagan's times.

re-read my post 26.3 and maybe you will understand what I am telling you.

Mike you are very confused here. Take a breath and re-read. Facts are Facts.

just like the repub zombie you are trying to put all of the problems in the u.s. on obama the former n!!bn!t screwed the economy up with the iraq war,where have you been?oh i guess you were looking for weapons of mass destruction,its unbelieveable the lies you try to make true when you know its horse puckey.

just like the repub zombie you are trying to put all of the problems in the u.s. on obama the former n!!bn!t screwed the economy up with the iraq war,where have you been?oh i guess you were looking for weapons of mass destruction,its unbelieveable the lies you try to make true when you know its horse puckey.

Why do liberals like to twist the questions to coincide with your illogical responses. The Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq war without batting an eye. It was a joint decision in Congress. So your lack of intelligence just supports the fantasy world you libs live in. This has nothing to do with the commentary if you haven't figured that out. Obama has done nothing to stop what had happened with Bush. Obama has multiplied the problems considerably, by not having the knowledge and experience to solve the problems. He has had terrible advisers give him erroneous miscalculated answers which he has supported. He has done absolutely nothing for the economy and unemployment. He has instituted more taxes and regulations which has caused small business not to be able to afford to stay in business or competitive with foreign countries. Obama should have made things easier and less costly for companies. Have competitive trade agreements and not ones which foreign countries benefited and American companies didn't. There are proper answers to the problems to get American companies competitive and profitable, so people could get back to work. But Obama has paid more attention to campaigning than running the country. His job, has been priority and not the American citizens getting back to work. America is on the back burner with Obama. He has no leadership skills what so ever. He is letting America crumble.

Fuzzy, I am always amazed how quickly you forget (or just ignore) what was going on during that time like the false reports of WMD. But that's a Republican robot for you. You also missed out on learning history too didn't you or was it that you were asleep. Try reviewing what went on during the 1920's and 1930's and the Great Depression. You might also want to do a bit of research during the Reagan administration that Reagan approved tax hikes a record 11 times. (more than any other president in history) You are probably unaware that taxes on the wealthy were initially increased to 64% and has reached 94% which didn't result in any of these greedy wealthy parasites from loosing anything but it did get the country back on its economic feet. I'm not saying that taxes on the wealthy need to go that far but the Bush tax breaks need to end and the wealthy need to pay their fair share. (unlike the 1400 millionaires who paid nothing in 2010 and the majority of millionaires and billionaires who paid less than 35%. I would ask if you could be any more naive except that you would take that as a challenge.

I think its time for you liberals to get off your lazy butts and pitch in. You blame the very people that are supporting this country with NO help from you liberals. All you people do is complain and blame. You can't even see which is right in front of you what is happening to America. I agree the Republicans aren't doing what they should be doing and the Democrats are just destroying America. Our entire government needs to be overhauled and everyone has become a part of the problem and not the solution. This childish bickering isn't helping at all. And the liberals have been the most annoying and little help coming from them. They think people that have a job owes it to support them. WRONG. That's all I have to say tonight because it falls on deaf ears. Have a good evening.