It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Budget Rejected by House in 414-0 Vote

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+3 more 
posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:51 AM

Obama Budget Rejected by House in 414-0 Vote

The House of Representatives rejected the Obama administration’s proposed budget 414-to-0; it failed to get a single Democratic vote. As Ed Morrissey noted, “the President wants to keep proposing massive deficits, increased spending, and higher taxes . . . This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress. In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.”
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:51 AM
One way to reduce trillion-dollar deficits would be to pass legislation eliminating obstacles to economic growth. The more the economy grows, the more tax revenue the government will have. But Obama administration policies have created more obstacles to job creation, and are preventing the economy from recovering at a rapid rate. Liz Peek writes in Fiscal Times about “How Obamacare Derailed the Economic Recovery.” As we noted earlier, Obamacare is causing layoffs in the medical device industry, is discouraging employers from hiring, and is reducing capital investment needed for future hiring and expansion. The Dodd-Frank law pushed through Congress by the Obama administration has also wiped out jobs and driven thousands of jobs overseas.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:54 AM
I think the true culprits are those people who want to spend as little money as possible and to get the highest return on the money they just spent. In other words business is the true culprit just being a bunch of greedy mfers
edit on 30-3-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:06 AM
I find this absolutely shocking!! Not even a single Democrat would give a vote for it, even after they know the budget was dead in the water. They couldn't even give a throw away vote to support Obama.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by bo12au

Yet somehow he appears to still have supporters? And remember, he will get re-elected. This country is going so far down the tube, I am actually getting a bit scared. Though I admit, it is odd that the legislation actually is making some wise choices... That at least is different from the normal

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by bo12au

Yet somehow he appears to still have supporters? And remember, he will get re-elected. This country is going so far down the tube, I am actually getting a bit scared.

Your not the only one. I find this 414 - 0 vote odd? Not one democrate will back obamas budget? Has that happened before? In the real world, wouldn't/shouldn't this derail or at least put a serious dent in obamas re-election? And yeah, I've got this sick feeling that he will be re-elected (shudder).

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:23 AM
OK now that the "vote of lack of confidence" group has set their hair on fire. Perhaps you might want to question WHY all of the democrats voted no.

She said that Mulvaney’s amendment is a dangerous “shell that could be filled with a number of things that could hurt our economy and hurt the middle class.”

“While Congressman Mulvaney’s amendment aims for many of the same top-line numbers as the president’s budget, he puts forward no specifics or ways about how he would reach these targets,” she said. “For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires, his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class. And rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs.”

Mick Mulvaney from the "great" state of South Carolina - added an amendment that acted as a poison pill. Wich is the same ole thing raise taxes on the people with out the power and cut programs to the same people.

There is always more to this stuff than meets the eye. When every congress person votes against their president desires there is something wrong and it is NOT a vote of no confidence no mater how you try to spin it.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by minor007

That is simply a result of the current economical situation, not the root cause. When times are tough people will tend to spend less. The same principle goes to business.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:25 AM
America loves to compete. Some would argue she is one big competition. What do we do when we aren’t

competing? We rest on couches and watch others compete. Work or play, it’s in the American DNA. Red, white

and competition

It is this competitive spirit of American culture within individuals that has made our country flourish. But that pride

and understanding of this philosophy is eroding. We live in an age where everyone is a “winner.” Pop-psychology

motivates people by having them repeat “you are special.” The politically correct thing to do is hand out trophies

to everyone on the team. But just as bids are earned, recognition for achievement of any kind should be too.

The voices of socialism want to put the poor against the rich, portray an image of the strong beating down the

little guys, and then leverage the masses in revolution to rule the rich and bend rules to favor the weak. Take

Marx and Lenin. The Bolsheviks had “the workers” taking over. In today’s terminology…letting the 99% rule.

Then there is the other side. The Germans went for the strong. Nazism had a philosophy, which came from

Nietzsche, that humans were genetically predisposed to be either aggressive wolves or weak sheep. It

said, “Why let the weak rise up and rule?” Hitler infused it with strong nationalism, killed as many of the 99% as

he could as Germany followed the misguided belief they were the elite race. The 1%.

Can you see how this doctrine of competition goes to the heart of how we live? Wars are fought and will continue

to be fought over this ideology. Politics too easily turn into defending the weak or the strong. But if you go down

those roads on how to view competition, it can be a trap, and in my opinion, not very American. We didn’t get

here by Soviet or German doctrine. We need to protect competition and individual achievement in our economy.

It is under attack. It is what built America and opens the door for freedom and humans to flourish. We need to be

re-educated on how competition is good for all. And all can enter.

Competition thrives when people believe they can enter and play their hand and are being guided by their

personal ambitions. In free societies and markets, it allows for all to enter…all to compete. You can run for office,

rise up in the big leagues, build a business, you name it. But competition does require something. You have to

compete. This means you have to be the man fighting in the arena. You can’t wait around. You can’t expect

something for free. You have to step out and take a risk. You have to earn it

The critique right now in America is that competition is dog-eat-dog and only has one clear winner and loser. It

needs protection, regulation, watch-dogs. One person’s wealth comes at the expense of the rest. All this talk

gets people scared and think they can’t compete, so they don’t. They find easier methods. Are there greedy guys

you can blame? Sure. Do you win every time? No. But competition is a learning process, with training and time.

You win by being tested, and often losing a few battles to get there. Those lessons of struggle and failure in

business, like in life, are the best teachers.

Competition forces you into understanding people’s needs. Offering a service or a product that is unique or

better quality or greater value. That is what makes the market efficient and raises the bar and lowers prices. If

you make bad products, you shouldn’t be rewarded for it.

One of the most important lessons in markets is that the pie does not shrink or have less for the next guy just

because one guy is doing well. Markets are dynamic. They can grow bigger…together. Let me explain by way of

fraternity rush. Are there some clear winners after rush? Absolutely. But the fact that everyone is competing

means that everyone is actually raising their game. The entire system is raised up. This is the same with free

markets. It creates new drugs, improves technologies, brings efficiencies, vets better candidates, and invents far

greater products. Innovation, creativity, and new development thrive with competition

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:30 AM
In the great American congressional tradition I see it as 414 Congressmen not getting enough pork barrel projects in their district. In other words the budget simply was not big enough for them.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:33 AM
The republicans didn't vote for it because it was a democratic budget. The democrats didn't vote for it because the republicans were trying to tinker with it and that tinkering would screw the middle class.
edit on 30-3-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by spyder550
The republicans didn't vote for it because it was a democratic budget. The democrats didn't vote for it because the republicans were trying to tinker with it because that tinkering would screw the middle class.

No dispespect, but lets not sling mud, or point fingers. DC is a circus with no trapeeze net.

While the GOP-controlled House has just passed a budget plan of its own, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not passed a single budget during the Obama Administration, leaving the country without an official budget for over a thousand days. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) acknowledged that “there’s no excuse” for Senate Democrats’ failure to pass a budget, and that a state governor might face impeachment for similarly failing to put together a budget. Senate Democrats don’t want to pass a budget containing all the spending they’ve authorized through individual spending bills, since doing so would further expose their complicity in the Obama administration’s record deficit spending. During the Obama administration, the federal government has run up the largest budget deficits in history; the Obama administration ran up more red ink in just one month (February 2010) than the Bush administration ran up in an entire year (all of 2007). In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed massive spending increases.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:46 AM
The problem is that we somehow have decided we need to control the lives of others to ensure some sort of 'fairness'. Obama is busily trying to implement policies to do just this (witness the Dodd-Frank Act) while ignoring the economic realities of capitalism.

Income for the government comes from taxes, nothing else. The government makes nothing, sells nothing, creates nothing. Private enterprise makes things, sells things, and creates new things, in the process paying taxes to support the government. In return, the government has the responsibility to control international trade, maintain national sovereignty, establish and enforce social guidelines (laws), and ensure a system for resolving disputes. A reasonable argument can be made that the government should play a role in overseeing and coordinating certain projects that profit society in ways that cannot reasonably be accommodated by private enterprise, such as roads construction/maintenance and establishment of parks and recreational facilities, libraries, etc.

That's it. That is the extent of proper governmental power.

Private industry provides the taxes to keep this government working. As taxation is typically and properly based on a percentage of income, tax revenues will increase as the economy grows and decrease as the economy slows. Thus it is in the best interest of government to have industry increase so social programs for the under-privileged in society can be implemented. Since these social programs rely on taxes from private enterprise to operate, it is in the best interest of the people to have private enterprise flourish. And, obviously, it is in the best interests of private industry to flourish.

There is no downside to an improving economy.

And yet we find ourselves in a situation where this obvious logic has been superseded by governmental attempts to over-regulate and public outcries for more regulation. I personally attribute this to a combination of laziness and jealousy. Laziness because so many people do not want to work at a job for their income, preferring to instead draw money from social programs, and jealousy because many people somehow think they automatically deserve the same results in life as those who have either worked harder and smarter for greater rewards or who have simply been born with greater advantages. The former case is one of inherent fairness when all the variables are considered, while the latter may not be 'fair' but is obviously unavoidable.

Private enterprise flourishes when it makes and sells things for a profit. For that to happen, there have to be a few things happening. One, private enterprise must have a product/service which is either wanted or needed by people. Two, that product/service must be accessible by people. The first requirement has never been a problem in the USA; we typically come up with new and greater ideas: microwave ovens, cellular telephones, high-speed Internet service, iPads/iPods/iPhones, High-definition TVs, automobiles, appliances, tools, and a myriad of other things we all are familiar with. Of course, every one of these things came about as a result of a major investment by someone to not just invent them, but to perfect and improve them. The money and resources to do this came from hard work and success in private enterprise.

The second requirement is a bit more elusive, especially in today's economic climate. Accessibility can be simply having something on the local store shelves, but it can also mean having it on those shelves at a price the majority of customers can afford to buy. What good is making the greatest computer in the world if only two people in the world can buy one? None. So one necessity of success in private enterprise is having other people make enough money to afford one's product. This is a function of both the price of the product and the value of money in a society.

Here's the problem: government regulations on private enterprise that increase the cost of perfecting and making the products raise the price. As the price rises, other sources from other nations begin to fill the gap between "I want" and "I can afford". One role of government is to level this playing field through the use of tariffs to protect its own industry, but of course we don't do that. Instead, we watch while companies move overseas and cheer because finally those 'rich guys' are getting their 'just deserts'. They are; they are making their products at a lower cost with less regulations and making more profit since we still buy them.

We, on the other hand, no longer have the jobs that enterprise provided. And since that means more people on social programs, it means more cost for the taxpayers, which are now fewer in number.

Yeah, go Obama! We haven't destroyed the whole economy yet... keep trying though.


posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Roll Tide to that

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:52 AM

edit on 30-3-2012 by bo12au because: oops

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:38 AM
Star and Flag. Right on!

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Dodd Frank -- I only deal with local banks -- no branches. I was talking to the president of one of the two banks in town - he was complaining about Dodd Frank -- one of his complaints was that the bank was required to make corrections if they made a mistake reporting to credit bureaus. He seemed to think that that was an injustice. Really if correcting a mistake is onerous what about the stuff that he really wants to get away with. I now only deal with the other bank and sold my shares in the first bank.

Regulations -- If there are no regulations on business then competition is tough. It is hard to remain in a market and produce quality widgets if your competitors are allowed to produce in possibly and as experience shows probably more harmful manner ---- You have no right to complain about regulations and complain at the same time that China is sending toys painted with lead paint. Without regulations you can not complain about anything really -- Actually with no regulations no company is liable for anything. I hope you are never wronged in that world because there is no recourse. But the free market. "My kid has lead poisoning -- freemarket solution dont buy that product again, good luck with the next kid because you have no way to know if a product has or hasn't lead. I know it is hard for people who see everything in Black and White but really try and envision your daily life with out regulations. Your neighbors septic tank over flowing -- tough. The food your buying -- will it make you sick. The snake oil the "doctor" (no regulation no doctor) is giving you will it do anything at all.

Gove Programs. One of the biggest side effects of universal health care I can see is it would free up entrepreneurial energy. I work mostly for insurance -- I can not afford to go without it. I can not afford to pay the massive amounts of cash for a hospital visit. My wife needs the insurance because of preexisting conditions.

I have good ideas I have patents -- I can not act because I can't get affordable insurance for my wife. I can not start a business that might employ 3 or 4 professionals. I know that this isn't just my problem I personally know many people in my situation - they have the itch but they have to whore themselves out for health insurance. You want to quash that -- silly silly boy.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by bo12au

You people keep harping on about how you want less regulations for businesses, etc.

Don't you realize the depth of that can of worms?

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:50 AM
I love how the same people that claim they don't fall for MSM bias eat this up.

People actually think this was "Obama's" budget.

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by spyder550

Too little water will cause dehydration and death if prolonged.

Too much water can drown you.

Does that mean we should outlaw water? Or maybe we should require water? No, it means we avoid both too much and too little.

It never ceases to amaze me how people tend to think in terms of black or white, when precious little in reality is not a shade of gray. Should banks be required to correct errors in credit reporting? OF COURSE! That is an issue of fairness: if you wrong someone, you correct that wrong. On the other hand, why are businesses required to spend millions of dollars to have an environmental impact survey done on a proposed building site with absolutely no reasonable expectation they will even be allowed to build them? Who are they wronging by trying to create jobs?

Some regulations are needed; some regulations are an undue burden.

As to Obamacare: you already have the ability to buy insurance as long as you can afford it. Obamacare does not change that. All Obamacare does is to force everyone else to buy insurance as well. So your complaint is not about a lack of insurance, but rather about wanting everyone else to have to endure what you are enduring. Around here we call that "jealousy"; feel free to rename it to a less offensive word, just do not expect that to change what it really is.

Never in the history of the world has the availability of insurance for a service caused a decrease n the cost of that service. Every single time, insurance has caused the cost of the insured service to drastically increase. Before health insurance was offered cheaply via employment, health care was expensive but affordable. The cost increases came about, coincidentally, after employers began offering health insurance to employees. It jumped again when labor laws began to require health insurance from larger employers. As costs for the service increase, so the cost of the insurance increases and more people feel insurance is an absolute requirement. As more people buy insurance, the cost of the service increases again, and the vicious spiral continues.

Now you want to increase the cost of heath care again by forcing those who have no money to buy insurance with already to buy it anyway? Do you hate poor people that much? Are you that cruel?

As for your patents... congratulations. But "entrepreneurial energy" isn't your problem; worry and lack of funds are. If entrepreneurs are looking at a vibrant economy, they will invest in those patents and make money for both yourself and themselves. if they are looking at a poor economy with very little potential buying power, they will not. You are strangling your own potential by worrying that someone else might have an easier life than you do.

And in the process, you are strangling the potential of everyone else. Please stop before the entire country collapses.


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in