Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.
In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:
DETAILS: Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
The is a very simple reason there hasn't been a serious budget submitted by Obama and the democrats or one of the more than A dozen SERIOUS budgets the House has passed hasn't been brought up in the Senate for a vote.
Obama and the democrats...DON'T WANT a budget to be passed. As long as they are operating on a continuing resolution, they can spend like drunken sailors and claim that ain't!
And that is EXACTLY what they are doing!!!
Some of you jackwagons need to buy a clue, cause the propaganda is getting tired as hell. Repeating the lie over and over does NOT make it so any more!
As required by law, President Obama submits a budget each year to Congress. It isn't his fault if they don't pass it.
United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Presidents Budget did not get a single Democrat vote either. It got zero, I repeat zero, votes in the senate. Everyone is complaining about how poor President Obama cant get anything done because of mean oh congress. Which President could get things done without congress? I mean every leader in history of mankind had to be able to get action out of people in their government without them they could get nothing done. It is the Presidents job to work with congress, lead and get stuff done. Stop this crying and get to work. I think it is sad that so many Americans accept this as an excuse. It is sad really because so many Americans like excuses over work.
And that's basically because Republicans introduced "poison pills" meant to get Democrats to vote against it.
ah like obama introducing poison pill amendments to stop the immigration bill from passing? like that? after agreeing to support it btw?
Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.
In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:
DETAILS: Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
Poor tonto, every DEM voted against the last one waddaya gonna do
Facing a barrage of attacks after a version of President Obamas budget failed 99-0 in the Senate, the White House pushed back Thursday with a simple response: Hold your horses, that wasnt actually our budget.
As with the Mulvaney resolution in the House, the resolution under consideration in the Senate is not presenting a vote on the Presidents budget, a senior administration official told TPM. This is just a gimmick the Republicans are putting forward to distract from what the Ryan-Republican budget does: protects massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while making the middle class and seniors pay.
While Sessions amendment has all the same topline numbers as the Presidents budget, he puts forward no specifics or ways about how he would reach these targets. His proposal is a shell that could be filled with a number of things that could hurt our economy and hurt the middle class, the senior administration official 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.
Just as they did in March in the House of Representatives, Republicans forced a vote on a bill that was supposed to resemble the president's budget, but wasn't actually the president's budget. A Republican Senator submitted it, and called for the vote.
This is the presidents budget, said the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad of South Dakota, indicating the voluminous budget proposal President Obama offered. This is what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the presidents budget, he said, indicating the much slimmer document.
I think its readily apparent there is a big difference between the presidents budget, which I hold in my hands, and what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the presidents budget. This is not the presidents budget. So, of course, were not going to support it. Its not what the president proposed.
The White House official said the Sessions and Mulvaneys bills were mere GOP stunts to get Democrats on record opposing the Presidents budget as well as distracting from what the House Republican budget would do, which the official described as protect(ing) massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while making the middle class and seniors pay.
some people are just useful tools
Why won't the House vote on Obama's budget? They past Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's budget.
Why won't the House vote on Obama's budget? They past Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's budget.
Why won't the House vote on Obama's budget? They past Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's budget.
Why vote on a budget that failed to receive a single vote in the Senate? And where is the Democrats budget?
Why won't the House vote on Obama's budget? They past Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's budget.
Why vote on a budget that failed to receive a single vote in the Senate? And where is the Democrats budget?
Seriously, you aren't really that stupid, are you?
Why won't the House vote on Obama's budget? They past Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan's budget.
Why vote on a budget that failed to receive a single vote in the Senate? And where is the Democrats budget?
Seriously, you aren't really that stupid, are you?
Obama still spends 3times the a prior administration. THat's not complicated, those are facts and to add not one budget proposal in first term speaks volumes of his recklessness towards spending, dumass.elvis said:Hi, you have received -999 reputation points from elvis.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Fool
Regards,
elvis
Note: This is an automated message.
Apparently the OP was just too complicated for elvis.
Why vote on a budget that failed to receive a single vote in the Senate? And where is the Democrats budget?
Seriously, you aren't really that stupid, are you?
Did the senate not give his budget a single vote?
