Obama Budget fails in Senate. 99-0

OUCH... This had to hurt!

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.

Source

Well, Congress hasn't passed a budget of their own since Obama was elected. I guess this means he'll leave Office with a perfect record of no formal budgets being passed in his whole term? That would be another first in US History. Not a good one, but yes, another first.

Like i said....the more they hide the more they will reveal themselves.


Its on now..

Well thats a big no confidence vote all around now ain't it...

thats got to be a little concerning for him.

I hope that people remember this when they ask/demand that the debt ceiling get raised again.

2nd

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I guess all he can do now is to HOPE for something to CHANGE.

This is essentially a vote of no confidence.

This puppet wannabe dictator needs to be impeached. He is absolutely useless. If history records truthfully, he will go down as the most inept president the US has ever had the misfortune of having.

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 that's the rest of the story... Just more political gaming in the legislature.

What is clear is that Washington is broken and are playing us all for fools.

So the Republicans add an small amendment to another bill, call it Obama's budget, even though this wasn't proposed by any Democrats and then try to smear him for having his budget defeated.

The Washington Times strikes again, twisting the truth for the masses to lap up. The newspaper is owned by cult leader Reverend Sun Myung Moon, you know. You are reading the news presented by a man who thinks he is the Messiah. Why do people who aren't a part of his cult even read a Moonie newspaper?

You seem to have forgotten a part of the article.

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.

The Republicans are calling it "Obama's budget"...even Obama is saying that it is not the same budget he proposed. His was very detailed, the one they are voting on is a very stripped down version that has none of the specific language in it.


But don't let that stop you from spreading partisan propaganda.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You seem to have forgotten a part of the article.


The Republicans are calling it "Obama's budget"...even Obama is saying that it is not the same budget he proposed. His was very detailed, the one they are voting on is a very stripped down version that has none of the specific language in it.

If by specific language you actually meant "free crap for illegals", then you might be right.

you also seem to have forgotten a part of the article.

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.

reply to post by lernmore


They used the numbers without the specifics...do you honestly think that is a good idea?

Do you think we should pass a budget that just has numbers and no specifics on how all that money is allocated?

Anyone who thinks a budget will get passed in an election year should take a look back at history. Actually, anyone who thinks an official budget will get passed at any point of any year should do some research. We've been rolling on continuing resolutions for most of the last 40 years.

Adding to that: Raise your hand if you were aware that even if a budget was passed, the numbers within said budget are not required to be followed. It's more of a guideline than anything.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

They used the numbers without the specifics...do you honestly think that is a good idea?

Do you think we should pass a budget that just has numbers and no specifics on how all that money is allocated?

You make it sound as if they simply deleted the characters A-Z and left the numbers 0-9... not the case.

I haven't looked at either version, but watching the arguments from the floor, it was clear that some of the language removed didn't change the numbers, only who was (and I hate to use this word) entitled to it.

Removing one sentence at the end of a paragraph dealing with "undocumented mothers" does not equal "numbers without specifics".

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Whos plan is it then?

If they didnt use his numbers, whose did they use?

Is there a mysterious shadow person making decisions behind his back?


Please-id like to know.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Anyone who thinks a budget will get passed in an election year should take a look back at history. Actually, anyone who thinks an official budget will get passed at any point of any year should do some research. We've been rolling on continuing resolutions for most of the last 40 years.

Adding to that: Raise your hand if you were aware that even if a budget was passed, the numbers within said budget are not required to be followed. It's more of a guideline than anything.

edit on 16-5-2012 by usernameconspiracy because: Added some more info without providing a source. I'm lazy.

Actually, failure top pass a budget isn't a laughing matter. The 1974 Congressional Budget Act (A Democratic piece of legislation and bill, for what that matters) created standing Congressional budget committees and should have prevented this. That was, in part, the logic for having passed it. Richard Nixon was playing games with the money in much the same way Obama is now. The Democrats wrote that to fix Nixon's little games and any future Presidents who might think to do it. Funny how the opposite is now the case and problem. Now in fairness, this isn't the first year without a Budget. There have been a few others...

Our Florida colleagues also foundthat since 1983, the House and Senate have failed to pass a joint budget bill on four occasions.

For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. On three other occasions (fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007), the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress.

Source

So, this isn't unheard of and near criminal irresponsibility had been a shared problem between both the right and the left in those past instances. This is a unique situation now in that a proper budget hasn't passed in the United States since 2009. That was passage of BUSH's last budget and interestingly enough, the way the law reads, that is still the budget "in effect". At least federal law as I read it stipulates that the failure to pass a budget in a fiscal year causes the previously passed budget to carry as the framework into the following year. I don't believe they envisioned a situation of an ENTIRE 4 year term passing without a budget.

Now the House version is imperfect, but that 1974 Congressional Budget act established the procedures for the Senate to produce their own version for considering. This is something Reid has refused to do and still does. That is now running through the 3rd year of violating a set of laws both parties agreed on and established, not to mention the base requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is also very clear about the duties and requirements of the annual budget process.

1974 Budget and Impound Act

U.S. Federal Budget Law Summary - Source: White House (PDF File)

It's not enough to simply say Republicans have screwed this pooch themselves. They certainly have in single year instances, as I note above. Justifying bad behavior (criminal in this case, and in more than mere technical terms after 3 long years, IMO) by citing OTHER bad behavior is the last refuge of those who know they're wrong and can't admit it. Who's justifying? Well... I'll leave that to stand for itself.

Dont spend money you dont have obama! that goes for the rest of you losers in the gov too. Pay the debts and drop the unnecessary wars (domestic and abroad). Drop all the funds used to spy on us. dont spend money on drones for us. Fix the easily abused entitlement programs so they are not being drained by people that dont actually need them. Tax the rich not the poor. Invest money in our country rather than others.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Its hard to get anything done when your hands are tied, your feet are strapped, your cut out at your knee's and throw into a corner, blind folded and gagged.

Lets not forget its the republicans making it as hard as possible for this man to accomplish ANYTHING!

They arent doing it because its in the best interests of the country, they are doing it so looks as bad as possible so the republicans can use it to get voted back in.

No wonder your country is falling apart, your politics are as pathetic as peoples will to remove the criminals.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

That's a fair argument on budget matters since the 2010 election. So, for the second half of his term.

What about the first half? Dems had controlling majorities in both houses and, of course, control of the White House. Blaming the issues on the minority party just doesn't work too well.

Bush had the same control of both houses and the White House for a fair part of his term, as well. He ALSO utterly failed to get much of importance done. Is it fair to blame the Dems for Bush's failures while they were the minority party? I don't think so.

It was a 100% Republican Fail. Just as the first half of Obama's term has been a 100% Democrat fail.

Now? It's a mixed failure, but a total fail that both sides can share credit for. They both did everything to make it happen.

(Or to put it another way.....Each party having total control solved nothing and having them with split control solves nothing. I guess the only solution is to vote them ALL out and start fresh. Both parties..EVERYONE..OUT. )

There is a reason for this that is not being discussed and often left out the simple fact once a budget gets passed they have to "stick withing it" ok well supposedly.

They can spend whatever they want for whatever they want as long as there is no budget which is most likley why this was shot down and continues to be shot down.

Over 5 trillion dollars in 3 and half years the credit downgrade and now they need to raise the ceiling agian they make no sense at all to me.

Cutting the budget means raising taxes are not necessary or those idiots can issue more treasuries to cover its bills.

Really have no clue what is going on in their little hampster wheel cages they call brains it seriously is like they are trying to crash the system on purpose they are literally gaming the system against itself.

Fire the whole lot of them.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I guess all he can do now is to HOPE for something to CHANGE.

Romney wont be any different, i am going to laugh if people start complaining about Romney failed promises.