99-0: Senate votes down Obama’s budget unanimously — again; Update: Zero Dem votes for four GOP budgets

posted at 5:23 pm on May 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

Another day, another congressional shutout of O’s latest unserious gimmick. That makes three in the past year. The Senate torpedoed his last budget 97-0 in May 2011, then the House dropped a goose egg on him in March with a robust 414-0 tally. Now this.

610-0:

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up…

The White House has held its proposal out as a “balanced approach” to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time.

There’s no better testament to how politically toxic that $6.4 trillion figure is than the fact that Senate Democrats would rather hand the GOP yet another day of “Obama shutout!” headlines than sign on to this travesty out of party loyalty. Said Mitch McConnell of Reid’s refusal to offer his own budget, “They’re so unserious they won’t even vote for a budget that was written by a president of their own party. It doesn’t get more irresponsible than that.” Indeed — but follow that last link and you’ll find that it’s Jay Carney, of all people, who’s complaining about “gimmicks.”

The good news, though? According to Tom Coburn, O’s finally ready to tackle this problem in a forthright manner. Case in point was today’s “hoagie summit”:

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) attended the meeting. Mr. Carney said of the meeting: “The tone was genial, the discussion was productive, the sandwiches were delicious.”

Mr. Obama bought sandwiches from Taylor Gourmet in Washington, D.C., where he met with small-business owners ahead of his lunch with the congressional leaders. (The president ordered a 12-inch Spruce Street hoagie, which has roast turkey, prosciutto, roasted red peppers and sharp provolone, but it remains a mystery what he ordered for the congressional leaders. The total was $62.79. A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said the speaker “was very pleased with the sandwiches.”)…

Mr. Boehner asked the president whether he wanted to extend the nation’s debt ceiling, or borrowing limit, without spending cuts and the president said “yes,” according to a Boehner aide. The speaker told the president “as long as I’m around here, I’m not going to allow a debt-ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt.”

So there’s the state of “seriousness” on May 16: The guy who proposed new spending so massive that not a single federal legislator from his own party will endorse it refuses to accept any further cuts as a condition to raising the debt ceiling. When asked why, presumably he’ll say we can’t afford cuts at a moment when the eurozone’s teetering and threatening to drag its American trading partner down with it. In that case, when? The eurozone’s likely to be teetering for a good long while unless it crashes in the near term. Over to you, Tom Coburn.

Via Breitbart.com, here’s Bernie Sanders transmitting from a magical dimension in which Democrats have passed some sort of budget within the past three years.

Update: Can’t find the rolls right now but the word on Twitter is that Democrats voted unanimously against Paul Ryan’s, Rand Paul’s, Mike Lee’s and Pat Toomey’s budget proposals too. On the most momentous domestic issue of our time — fiscal sustainability — they’ve checked out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Man, Obama needs another distraction right quick. How about gay…. gay……………. I don’t know. Gay something. Does it matter? Just as long as it’s gay.

Dongemaharu on May 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

The budget is… gay; gay, I tell you. Even it’s mommy, Obama, doesn’t love a gay budget.

Gladtobehere on May 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I actually like that photo of 0. He looks pissed. I like that. ; ) Its either that or he looks hurt. I like that. ; )

Bmore on May 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I dunno- That pic of Ozero is beginning to freak me out.

I really can’t look at it anymore.

FlaMurph on May 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

oh, looks like I forgot the part where 50 people who are probably creationists call me stupid.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Oh, look, a non-sequitur to distract from the fact that people dissected your shallow, banal political analysis. How cute.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 16, 2012 at 6:41 PM

oh, looks like I forgot the part where 50 people who are probably creationists call me stupid.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Creationists, unlike Democrats, know how to balance a budget. Get your head out of Barney Frank’s butt.

Gladtobehere on May 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM

0 for 3…yeah baby

epic fail

cmsinaz on May 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I hope George Clooney will be around to soothe poor Barry tonight – at times like this, a man needs someone to hold onto.

Pork-Chop on May 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

pretty pathetic that the dems wouldn’t even vote for their guys budgets…

cmsinaz on May 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I dunno- That pic of Ozero is beginning to freak me out.

I really can’t look at it anymore.

FlaMurph on May 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Because you’ll see that same exact look on Wed Nov 7 and wonder what the he!! is he planning to do to us.

antipc on May 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

the word on Twitter is that Democrats voted unanimously against Paul Ryan’s, Rand Paul’s, Mike Lee’s and Pat Toomey’s budget proposals too. On the most momentous domestic issue of our time — fiscal sustainability — they’ve checked out.

In 2006, the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress based on promises that they would be fiscally responsible.

They LIED.

The Democrats have proven that they cannot be trusted with control of our nation’s financial future.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Stoopid creationists.
Man, screw politics again.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM

he repeatedly praised Obama’s plan as a “balanced approach.”

Carney, everyone knows that Obama’s “balanced approach” is a code for raising taxes and pretending to cut the budget. Isn’t the clown already aware that the potential expiration of the Bush tax-rate cuts in 2013 will raise taxes? Isn’t the clown already aware the O-care will raise the tax bite?

Is Coburn still snoozing? Did he support the four Senate plans that the GOP offered?

A hoagie summit? How “enchanting”!

onlineanalyst on May 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

The interviewer should have asked why Sen. Sanders is against “Means testing for Social Security” !!

Why are we paying Social Security to millionaires like Joe Biden ??

KenInIL on May 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

oh, looks like I forgot the part where 50 people who are probably creationists call me stupid.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I can’t help but note that instead of answering my question at 6:11 you just engaged in name calling. As if only creationists call you stupid! LOL

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

The interviewer should have asked why Sen. Sanders is against “Means testing for Social Security” !!

Why are we paying Social Security to millionaires like Joe Biden ??

KenInIL on May 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

It’s a good question.

But to be fair, Biden is a pauper compared to Obama or Romney. He certainly would fall out if means tested but why pick on Joe?

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 6:58 PM

oh, looks like I forgot the part where 50 people who are probably creationists call me stupid.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I can’t help but note that instead of answering my question at 6:11 you just engaged in name calling. As if only creationists call you stupid! LOL

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It’s not stupid; it’s just “evolving” from a lower form of Democrat, like Obama.

Gladtobehere on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Creationists, unlike Democrats, know how to balance a budget.

Is that so?

Does anyone remember the last president that balanced the budget?

Anyone?

Bueller?

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

The interviewer should have asked why Sen. Sanders is against “Means testing for Social Security” !!

Why are we paying Social Security to millionaires like Joe Biden ??

KenInIL on May 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Sanders would be perfectly happy to cut SS for millionaires. Here’s what people need to know.

Means testing of SS/Medicare will start at roughly 50-60K and be phased out at 100K, if you are retired.

Same thing with Medicare…there will be a premium surcharge (which now starts at 160K). I think they’ll have to start the surcharge much lower, say 60K

The other side, the taxes…if totally a tax solution, they’ll have to uncap the SS max. The left want it to be imposed at 250K and Above, but I think it will have to be more than that

r keller on May 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM

For those who have seen this a hundred times, I apologize, but this needs to be said over and over to reach those who might be seeing it for the first time…

===========================================

What Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats promised in 2006 in order to win the 2006 elections and control of Congress:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

What Nancy Pelosi promised on January 4, 2007 when she became Speaker of the House:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011. How much new debt was created during her 4 years as speaker?

Go to Debt to the Penny, and search on the period 1/4/2007 – 1/3/2011.
01/03/2011 $13,997,932,781,828.89
- 01/04/2007 $8,670,596,242,973.04
———————————————–
$5,327,336,538,855.85

Pelosi and the Democrats promised

Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline… no more deficit spending.

And what did they deliver?

In just 4 short years as Speaker, Pelosi added over $5.3 TRILLION in new debt, increasing the total national debt by over 60% in just 4 short years.

And it didn’t end there. Democrats still control the Senate and the Presidency. And therefore, Democrats still have majority control over the budgeting and spending process.

The most recent debt numbers are:
05/15/2012 $15,716,115,612,805.06
- 01/04/2007 $8,670,596,242,973.04
———————————————–
$7,045,519,369,832.02

The 5 worst fiscal year deficits in the history of this country have ALL come at the hands of a Democratic majority in Washington, D.C. after they promised “no more deficit spending”!

Democrats have increased the total national debt by over $7 TRILLION after they promised “no more deficit spending”!

They are LIARS and cannot be trusted.

They promised fiscal discipline and “no more deficit spending”, but have increased the total national debt from $8.67 Trillion to over $15.71 Trillion (an increase of over 81%) in less than 5 and a half years. And they haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years.

Any voter who wants fiscal sanity MUST vote Republican in November.

To vote for a Democrat and expect fiscal discipline is INSANE (doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result).

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM

The republican balanced budget is a myth.

It hasn’t happened since 1957.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Is that so?

Does anyone remember the last president that balanced the budget?

Anyone?

Bueller?

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

With that Democratic Congress…oh wait.

You can thank Newt dimwit.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Is that so?

Does anyone remember the last president that balanced the budget?

Anyone?

Bueller?

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Clinton did it by cutting the military, and then creating a housing and stock market bubble. Get your head out of Barney Frank’s Butt.

Gladtobehere on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Triple ES

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

Gawd you dupes kill me.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

This is what happens: A republican offers up obama’s exact budget numbers, without any -policy changes- that are included in the real budget.

And then idiots like you believe it. And print it.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What “real budget”?

oh, looks like I forgot the part where 50 people who are probably creationists call me stupid.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Scroll back through the comments, not a single person called you stupid even though you did call idiots, but for the record I (an atheist, by the way) will make it official:

triple, you are pretty freaking stupid.

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Clinton did it by cutting the military, and then creating a housing and stock market bubble. Get your head out of Barney Frank’s Butt.

Gladtobehere on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

He signed what the Rep congress put in front of him.

Triple is putting on the educational video of how arguing with liberals is an exercise in inanity. They can’t focus, don’t argue logically, engage in teh most vile ad hominyms, and generally aren’t intelligent or honest.

tom daschle concerned on May 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

And then idiots like you believe it. And print it.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What “real budget”?

Hehehehehehe

Pathetic.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

With that Democratic Congress…oh wait.

You can thank Newt dimwit.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Oh, I get it.

Clinton did good, but he can’t take credit.

Obama isn’t, so it’s all his fault.

Presidents are either responsible or they’re not. Pick. One.

You can’t fault a president for budgetary failures, and then not give proper credit for success. It doesn’t work that way.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Triple is putting on the educational video of how arguing with liberals is an exercise in inanity. They can’t focus, don’t argue logically, engage in teh most vile ad hominyms, and generally aren’t intelligent or honest.

Projection much.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM

My apologies if someone else has mentioned this:
#MorePopularThanTheObamaBudget on Twitter will crack you up. My abs hurt.

shibumiglass on May 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

#MorePopularThanTheObamaBudget

As usual, Iowa Hawk is displaying his brilliant wit. For example:

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog

#MorePopularThanTheObamaBudget Casey Anthony Daycare Center

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog

#MorePopularThanTheObamaBudget The submarine ride at Six Flags Chappaquidick

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog

#MorePopularThanTheObamaBudget Jeff Dahmer’s Down Home Wisconsin Bratwurst

Flora Duh on May 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Hmmm that conservative outlet Factcheck.org (cough cough chuckle chuckle) notes the budget was more than balanced. Funny how that is not good enough for some when it suits em.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Does anyone remember the last president that balanced the budget?

Anyone?

Bueller?

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Presidents don’t “balance budgets” unless Congress PASSES a balanced budget for them to sign.

Republican controlled Congresses have failed in this, although not nearly as enthusiastically as the tax and spend Dems, I’ll give you that. But something tells me that you’re not a big lover of the Tea Part wing which is FINALLY TRYING to bring some fiscal responsibility to both sides of the isle. More likely you think they’re right wing extremists – so why the Harry Reid-esq whining about Republican budget gimmicks? Just admit you don’t give a rat’s patootie about balancing the budget.

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Oh, I get it.

Clinton did good, but he can’t take credit.

Obama isn’t, so it’s all his fault.

Presidents are either responsible or they’re not. Pick. One.

You can’t fault a president for budgetary failures, and then not give proper credit for success. It doesn’t work that way.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Actually you can but I realize you like it simple.

Oh and I am sure you are the first one out their standing up for the GOP during Bill’s tenure right? Yeh right.

Nice try. You’re among our dimmer trolls.ES .

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

What “real budget”?

This one.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

The republicans offered up this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112jELzNK:e2549:

Notice a difference?

It’s just a list of numbers.

The numbers (according to republicans) are exactly what obama’s budget would cost – with NONE of the policy initiatives.

Obama himself wouldn’t vote for this farce of a budget.

It’s literally just numbers.

No policy.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Triple now tell us about the REAL budget./

Gawd you’re a joke.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

The numbers are even more dramatic when you look at the breakdown of the debt and focus on the Debt Held by the Public.

Date: 01/04/2007
Debt Held by the Public: $4,898,816,127,068.69
Intragovernmental Holdings: $3,771,780,115,904.35
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $8,670,596,242,973.04

Date: 05/15/2012
Debt Held by the Public: $10,949,749,784,031.74
Intragovernmental Holdings: $4,766,365,828,773.32
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $15,716,115,612,805.06

Of the over $7 Trillion that the Democrats have added to the national debt since they took control of Congress on 1/4/2007, less than $1 Trillion of that debt is in the form of “Intragovernmental Holdings”.

Over $6 Trillion in new debt has been added to “Debt Held by the Public”, MUCH MORE THAN DOUBLING IT from under $4.9 Trillion to over $10.9 Trillion.

Stop for a second and really think about that. The “Debt Held by the Public” (and much of it held by China) has grown by more than 123% since the Democrats took control of the budgeting and spending process less than 5 and a half years ago!

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

- Barack Obama
July 3, 2008

Bush didn’t do it “by his lonesome”… Bush added $3 trillion in debt over 6 years with Republican majorities ($500 Billion a year), but every single fiscal year since the Democrats took control has added well over $1 Trillion to the debt each and every year.

What the Republicans did was bad, but what the Democrats have done has been two to three times WORSE.

What Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats have done is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

This one.

No policy.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So that was voted on and passed?

Wow I missed that. I might print that to wipe the triple off my arse because that is what it is worth.

Really dude or dudette? Sheesh.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM

No policy.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

How did the Democrats vote on Obama’s PROPOSED budget? Do tell.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Here’s an example.

“The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
(1) FEDERAL REVENUES- For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,065,796,000,000.”

That’s it.

That’s all the attention the budget of FY 2013 gets in the republicans’ version of obama’s budget.

I say the republicans’ version because obama’s real budget is several hundred pages.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Obama himself wouldn’t vote for this farce of a budget.

It’s literally just numbers.

No policy.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Exactly – when you strip out all the BS social engineering gimmickery, kickbacks, and pet programs and just deal with what it costs it’s patently absurd.

Thanks for making my point.

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

We all know the dupes, triple included, conveniently forget that the Dems (with Obama) controlled Congress during Bush’s last two years. Weird how that works.

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Obama himself wouldn’t vote for this farce of a budget.

It’s literally just numbers.

No policy.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

And as others above have said, the Dem majority in the Senate is free to submit the “real budget” for a vote any time they want to. I doubt any of them would vote for that either.

Pass the popcorn.

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Triple how many Dems voted for Obama’s budget? Why so quiet?

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Look you can disagree with obama’s budget all you want. This is america, it’s a free country, and that’s healthy debate.

But to just list a single number, call it the FY 2013 budget, and then claim it to be “obama’s budget” that just got defeated..

And here’s the thing.

Republicans aren’t stupid. They’re senators, they know what they’re doing. These are lifelong politicians. This isn’t their first budget.

You want to know a secret?

They think you’re stupid.

They think you’re stupid because they know people like you will go “omaigod obama’s budget was defeated 100-0!” and will post about it on hotair.com.

So thanks for being useful. Useful idiots.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

What a bore. triple you’re a tool of epic proportions. Laters . Really is this the best the left has?

CW on May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Does anyone remember the last president that balanced the budget?

Anyone?

Bueller?

triple on May 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

My guess is that you think the answer is Clinton, but that answer is wrong… for mutliple reasons.

Some of the reasons were covered by

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

But it’s bigger than that. It drives me up the wall every time Newt Gingrich claims that he “balanced the budget for four straight years”.

The bottom line to me is the national debt. If the debt went up in a fiscal year, then the budget wasn’t balanced, period. Enough with the Washington, D.C. gimmicks… let’s stick to the bottom line.

Now, with that said, can anyone answer the following question:

When was the last Fiscal Year when the total national debt acutally went DOWN, indicating a budget surplus that paid down the debt?

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Exactly – when you strip out all the BS social engineering gimmickery, kickbacks, and pet programs and just deal with what it costs it’s patently absurd.

Well, it’s the difference between walking into Best Buy and buying a 60″ 3d HDTV for $2500, and walking into Best Buy and giving them $2500 and going “surprise me.”

So there’s that.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Hot air: Do you guys have any problem with the republicans introducing dangerously ineffective budgets.. literally just very large numbers for the entire federal government.. as a political tool?

How much taxpayer money is wasted on strictly political stunt votes like this one?

Do you think it’s a good use of american taxpayer dollars?

Just wondering..

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM

The republican balanced budget is a myth.

It hasn’t happened since 1957.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half during his first term. Instead he squandered $5T that has to be paid by future generations.

Two of the three and a half years Obama has been in office he had a Congress where Dems held the majority. Now, I’m trying to be reasonable and since you refuse to answer my 6:11 question (because you can’t spin that much) I’ll ask another. Why is it that in those two years Jan 2009- Jan 2011, why is it that instead of fiscal responsibility we saw a President and filthy party rewarding their big supporters including the UAW and campaign bundlers? What happened to all those infrastructure “investments” that justified the massive spending. The mostly black school in SC that Obama cited as an example of wiring rural areas for the internet hasn’t been touched in three years.

Why is it that you refuse to defend Obama and this administration since you clearly want them to have another four years?

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 7:36 PM

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM

When was the last time you contacted Harry Reid’s office and ask him why it’s been 1,113 days without a budget from the Democrat controlled Senate?

Just wondering..

Flora Duh on May 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Mr. Boehner asked the president whether he wanted to extend the nation’s debt ceiling, or borrowing limit, without spending cuts and the president said “yes,” according to a Boehner aide.”

So Nancy Pelosi’s “Pay-Go” no longer applies?

Maybe Boehner should let the whole thing crash. Then we’ll find out what’s really important in government spending.

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Hot air: Do you guys have any problem with the republicans introducing dangerously ineffective budgets.. literally just very large numbers for the entire federal government.. as a political tool?

Triple you are missing the point. You may not like it but the Republicans are introducing budgets. What the hell has your side been introducing the last three budget cycles?

How much taxpayer money is wasted on strictly political stunt votes like this one?

How much did it cost the taxpayers when Obama’s brat took 24 Secret Service agents on a field trip to Mexico? Your idiot leader squandered $5T on crony capitalism. How dare you feign outrage over this vote?

Just wondering..

Wonderment and intellectual curiousity are not your strong suits.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Maybe Boehner should let the whole thing crash. Then we’ll find out what’s really important in government spending.

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

We’ve entered the silly season (the months leading up to an election). Posturing is par for the course but neither party is going to allow the US go into default.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Isn’t it obvious that neither of the two Parties want to be forced to operate under the restrictions a budget might pose (even Obumbo’s budgets, as bad as they are, would at some point restrict spending…just keep raising the debt limit and no problems…not!

aposematic on May 16, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Well, it’s the difference between walking into Best Buy and buying a 60″ 3d HDTV for $2500, and walking into Best Buy and giving them $2500 and going “surprise me.”

So there’s that.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Not if you make $50k per year, have a $300k mortgage on a house worth $200k, and $30k in credit card debt. It doesn’t matter at all.

peski on May 16, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The republican balanced budget is a myth.

It hasn’t happened since 1957.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Somehow I missed that earlier.

Triple is correct that the last fiscal year in which a budget surplus actually reduced the total national debt was FY 1957, passed in 1956 by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

Every Fiscal Year since then has increased the total national debt.

From Carter to Obama, the smallest FY deficit came in FY 2000, when a Republican-controlled Congress passed a budget, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, that “only” added $18 Billion to the total national debt that year.

The biggest FY deficit came in FY 2009, when Democrats, who controlled 59% of the House and Senate, passed a budget signed by President Obama that added a staggering $1,885 Billion ($1.885 TRILLION) to the national debt in just a single year.

That FY 2009 deficit was over 3.5 times the size of the last Republican-majority deficit (FY 2007, which increased the national debt by $501 Billion), and that FY 2009 deficit was over ONE HUNDRED TIMES the deficit of FY 2000.

These Democrats, who claimed that such deficit spending was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”, promised to end deficit spending and instead have yet to pass a budget that added less than a Trillion dollars in new debt to total national debt, each and every year.

In less than 5 and half years of majority control, they have already added over $7 TRILLION to our total national debt.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Oh, I get it.

Clinton did good, but he can’t take credit.

Obama isn’t, so it’s all his fault.

Presidents are either responsible or they’re not. Pick. One.

You can’t fault a president for budgetary failures, and then not give proper credit for success. It doesn’t work that way.

triple on May 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I give “credit”/”blame” to the party which controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

So “credit” for decreasing budget deficits in the last 6 years of Clinton’s Presidency goes to the Republicans who controlled the House and Senate.

And “blame” for the increasing budget deficits from FY 2008 to present goes to the Democrats who have controlled a majority since January 2007.

Yes, Republicans deserve credit for the $18 Billion deficit in FY 2000, and Democrats deserve credit for the $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion) deficit in FY 2009.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

The speaker told the president “as long as I’m around here, I’m not going to allow a debt-ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt.”

And Boehner will be “serious” until when? June 30th? Sept 1st? What does “serious” mean in Boehner speak, he won’t openly cry on national TV?

The idiot CAVED, EACH and EVERY TIME, is there a reason anyone will somehow buy his “serious” BS again?

Stop funding Dept of Education and EPA, a good start to show you’re “serious” about wasting money.

riddick on May 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I give “credit”/”blame” to the party which controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

So “credit” for decreasing budget deficits in the last 6 years of Clinton’s Presidency goes to the Republicans who controlled the House and Senate.

And “blame” for the increasing budget deficits from FY 2008 to present goes to the Democrats who have controlled a majority since January 2007.

Yes, Republicans deserve credit for the $18 Billion deficit in FY 2000, and Democrats deserve credit for the $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion) deficit in FY 2009.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Stop pointing out the obvious. And posting numbers, most liberals haven’t graduated past simple 2+2 problem solving…

riddick on May 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Can you spell LOSER?

It’s spelled b.a.r.a.c.k.

BTW, he sucks.

DuctTapeMyBrain on May 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Anyone else notice that Barack is a jumble for

B. A. Crack?

I figure that explains a lot of those that vote for him…they want their crack!

ProfShadow on May 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

We really have to stop paying these losers. All of them.

CorporatePiggy on May 16, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The great uniter strikes again.

magicbeans on May 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Someone should look up all of the things over the last century that were voted on in both houses and received a grand total of ZERO votes in favor of it…

… I bet that list is quite small, but Obama’s budget proposals would be on there… not just once, but multiple times.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You know what got more votes than Obama’s budget proposal?

Lizard People

Seriously.

ITguy on May 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I’ll wait for my apology from triple.

tom daschle concerned on May 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM

oh, please – do tell why I owe you an apology.

For what, educating you?

I linked to the amendment (1 paragraph re: fy2013, stating the federal government will spend X amount of money)

And then I linked to obama’s actual budget, a 250 page pdf available at budget.gov.

Here’s the kicker. If you did that with paul ryan’s budget? Reduced it to a single number for the entire federal government?

No republican would vote for that, either.

I dare them to vote for it.

triple on May 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM

triple on May 17, 2012 at 2:57 AM

Even if what you say is true, the dems won’t even bring up Obama’s budget for a vote. Again, proving the point. Obama’s an idiot and knows nothing about economics, budgeting, or governing.

He desperately needs to be retired. My local dog-catcher would do a better job as president that this clown.

Monkeytoe on May 17, 2012 at 7:52 AM

I dare the Democrats, who control the Senate, to obey the law and pass a budget in the Senate.

ITguy on May 17, 2012 at 7:53 AM

I keep forgetting. Which party is the “Party of NO!” You, know, the one that doesn’t get anything done.

taznar on May 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM

triple, honey, it’s been fun but you’re so outclassed here that it’s beginning to be embarrassing for you. I’m not suggesting you leave…just that you get an education before you post again.

creeper on May 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

It would appear that having no federal budget means the feds are spending money illegally. The CBO announced in January, which didn’t seem to make the news, and informed congress that almost $300 billion was being spend on expired programs; Congress has not re-authorized the programs including such items as the US Coast Guard. The CBO also announced that in September another $700 billion in spending would be “illegal”. So why isn’t the media attacking our government for being irresponsible. I guess if they did, citizens might find out that it is not the entire Congress which is remiss, but the Democratically controlled Senate. That just might be a revelation to many citizens that the Democrats control the Senate.

amr on May 17, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2