posted May 16, 2012 07:40 PM            

The O'Bomber budget was defeated 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House of Representatives.

There should be a message in there somewhere for O'Bomber and his Socialist Kool-Aid drinkers.

Obama's Budget Fails in Senate: 99-0
May 16, 2012 •
DANIEL HALPER

Senate Democrats and Republicans unanimously rejected President Obama's proposed budget this afternoon. The final vote tally was 99-0.

Likewise, the House also unanimously rejected the budget in March.

Prior to the vote, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions blasted the budget. "It was voted 414-0 in the House this year," said Sessions. I suspect in an hour or so it will go down again on the floor of the Senate by unanimous vote. That speaks a lot. That says a lot. It indicates the sad state of affairs in which we are in. It's deeply disappointing."

"For three consecutive years now, the Senate majority has refused to bring a budget of their own to the floor or to even put forward the President’s in its place," Sessions said in advance of the budget vote. "For two consecutive years, they’ve canceled the legally required committee meetings to work on a budget."

This vote was called by the Republicans, not Democrats.

UPDATE: Here's Sessions's most up to date statement on the Senate vote:

"Today, before the whole nation, the majority party running the Senate effectively declared that as long as they’re in charge this country will not have a budget.

"Their message is simple: send Washington more money. Don’t ask us what we’ll do with it. They’re determined to avoid public accountability as our nation spends its way to financial catastrophe.

"The decision by all Democrats to vote against all budgets, to stop the full budget debate the Senate is required by law to have, reflects their support for Majority Leader Reid’s view that to have a budget is ‘foolish’. It is a vote of the entire caucus to keep this nation on our unsustainable debt course."

posted May 16, 2012 11:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
No surprise there. He's become a liability to everyone.

---

Ain't that the freakin truth

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 11:55 AM            

For a second straight year, Republicans engineered a vote in the Senate on President Obama's budget in a bid to embarrass Democrats politically, as Senators voted 99-0 against Mr. Obama's spending plans. Democrats labeled it a stunt, while GOP lawmakers said it was evidence that the White House isn't serious about tackling the budget deficit.

“Once again, the Senate spoke unanimously against the President’s unserious budget," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement after the vote.

"The President should put forward a budget that earns at least one vote in Congress," said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Back in March, the House voted 414-0 against the Obama budget, which Republicans were only too happy to trumpet in a blizzard of news releases.

"0 - 513: Obama's Budget Now a National Laughingstock," read one headline from the office of Speaker John Boehner.

The votes occurred as the GOP took advantage of a little known piece of a federal budget law that allows anyone to force action on a budget in the Senate if a budget resolution has not been acted on by April of each year.

Democrats said the entire day's debate reeked of Republican politics, but they were more than happy to use the time to play a little politics of their own and lambaste GOP budget plans from several budget hawks like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), as well as the budget approved by the House, which was authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

"What we're really debating is whether we go back to policies that put us in the huge deficit ditch that we find ourselves in," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (R-MI), who spoke on the Senate floor with a giant sign next to her that read, "Budget Control Act Passed 74-26."

That was the deal on the debt limit approved in early August of 2011, which set spending limits for the Congress - for Democrats, the budget must go to those levels, while Republicans want to spend less.

"A budget isn't just a jumble of numbers, it's an expression of principles," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who joined fellow Democrats in savaging the Ryan budget from the House, arguing it would strip away a safety net for Americans hit hard by recent economic troubles.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set the tone for the day by describing the budget debate as a "waste of time," as he labeled the GOP offerings "stunt budgets."

Under federal law, the House and Senate are supposed to approve a "budget resolution" by April 15 of each year - that is a non-binding document which sets the parameters for spending bills to be approved by lawmakers later in the year.

But it hasn't worked too well.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) cited a telling statistic, that in the past 36 years, the Congress has only met that April 15 deadline a half dozen times.

Since 1976, the Congress has only twice approved its spending bills on time.

The difference was that back then, the deficits were manageable.

When I was a Page in the U.S. House in 1981, people were outraged that the deficit was going over $100 billion.

A lot of people would gladly swap a $100 billion deficit for this year's estimated $1.3 trillion.

And so, after a full day of budget bellowing, both sides headed home Tuesday evening from the Senate feeling like they had gotten the better of the other in the political debate.

Unfortunately, they were also no closer to any agreement on how best to erase yearly deficits which were once unimaginable. http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/05/16/budget-goose-egg/

posted May 17, 2012 12:13 PM            

acoustic, Hairy Reid and Senate demoscats have been violating US law for almost 3 years by failing to produce a budget for the US.

So what if Republicans brought up O'Bomber's budget for a vote. Hairy Reid and Senate demoscats should have had a budget...required by law...every year.

posted May 17, 2012 12:33 PM            

Things are so partisan Democrats have given up on bringing budgets. Why? Because Republicans refuse to raise taxes to make the government a more fiscally responsible entity. Republicans like to think they look at things like businessmen, but businessmen don't simply cut parts of their business out when they go into debt or become unprofitable, do they? No, they endeavor to increase income. In the end, it's impossible not to recognize that as stupid as Democrats may be acting, Republicans have been absolutely equally as idiotic.

posted May 17, 2012 02:07 PM            

Mittens will be forced to appear more Hawkish than a Hawk. Obama will need to appear pro actively warlike to satisfy the fearmongers...we all loose.

The plan submitted by Ryan will raise deficits- not reduce them.
Some say that it actually dis-invests in America, and if you look at the figures, and means- this is on point. The Republicans have also proved over decades an inability, to be fiscally responsible. It borders on criminal.

Why would anyone want a plan that will actually make things worse? Do we really need half of the country in poverty? Do we want to become Greece? We are headed that way.

------------------
1.) Privatize gains and socialize losses.

2) Take huge risks with other people's money.

3) Lower taxes and drown government in a bathtub.

4) When the house of cards comes crashing down, get a bailout and run with the money like a bandit.

5) Skate free of accountability by buying politicians with your ill-earned goods, and by forcing cuts to white-collar law enforcement in order to plug budget gaps from pension funds and other sources directly impacted by your exceptional thievery.