Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

[brotherplanet]

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate



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.

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.

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

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.

By contrast the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would notch just $3.1 trillion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $2 trillion.

The Senate is holding votes Wednesday on Mr. Obama's budget, the House GOP's budget and the three Senate Republican alternatives. None was expected to gain the 50 votes needed to pass the chamber.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -0-senate/

[Luminiferous]

It failed to garner any votes because it was ludicrous to try and pass something that nobody had agreed upon and was a poorly planned snip (numbers only) of an old budget proposal..

This whole bullshit today was nothing more than political posturing and nothing to do with even attempting to come up with an agreeable budget.. But please continue to act like this vote means anything except these idiots earned pretty good taxpayer money today not doing a fucking thing to help the American people..

Washington (CNN) -- It had all the appearances of a serious-minded debate: Republicans insisted the Senate spend all day Wednesday arguing which party had better budget proposals to fix the economy.

But the reality was none of the measures had enough votes to pass, and much of the exercise was an effort by both parties to score political points and embarrass the other side -- another display of partisan maneuvering that polls show frustrates voters.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell opened the debate by accusing Democrats of being "irresponsible" for not passing a formal budget this year.

"If you're looking for a simple, three-word description of the Democrat approach to the problems we face, it's this: duck and cover. They don't have a budget of their own. They're going to vote against their own president's budget later today and they're going to vote against every budget Republicans put up."


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fired back, saying the Senate had already agreed to funding levels for 2013 and was too busy to deal with "stunt budgets" offered by Republicans.

"We can't afford to waste any time," Reid said. "Yet today Republicans will force the Senate to waste a day on a series of political show votes."

Republicans commandeered the floor by taking advantage of a seldom-used Senate rule that allows any senator to offer a budget if the Budget Committee has not passed a budget resolution by April 1.

In this case, Republicans called up five budgets: one that closely mirrored President Obama's budget proposal submitted earlier this year; another, authored by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, which the House approved; and three from very conservative senators aimed at making drastic reductions to entitlements costs, government spending and taxes.

Going into the day, everyone knew none of the bills would get the 51 votes needed to succeed. And, as Republicans had calculated, the president's budget got zero yes votes, providing Republicans with the political ammunition they sought for the campaign trail this year.

"The president's 2013 budget would expand the scope of government by spending more money, increase taxes on job creators, and continue on the path of enormous deficits and record debt," explained Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Several Democrats, however, said they voted against the president's budget not because they oppose its broad principles but because it was submitted several months ago and is now out of date.

"It misrepresents the president's budget," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, a liberal who is up for re-election "The numbers have changed since then."

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, another liberal who also is running for re-election, said he was not going to fall for a GOP trap.

"It's become too much of a game for these guys," he said just as he entered the chamber to cast his vote against the motion representing the Obama budget.

Centrist Democrat Joe Manchin, who is also up for re-election in closely divided West Virginia, said he opposed all the GOP budgets because "they would destroy Social Security and Medicare -- all while protecting the wealthy" and the president's budget because "it digs an even deeper debt hole for the next generation."

The House Republican budget got 41 Republican votes and zero Democratic votes. Five Republicans, including Sen. Scott Brown who is facing a tough re-election fight in Massachusetts, voted against it.

A proposal from Sen. Pat Toomey, R- Pennsylvania, that would balance the budget in eight years got 42 Republican votes and no Democratic votes.

A proposal from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, that would cut eliminate several cabinet agencies -- including Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Developments and Energy -- only got 16 votes.

And a proposal from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, which would institute a flat tax, raise the eligibility age for Social Security, and repeal "Obamacare" only got 17 votes.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, complained the GOP budget proposals "would take us right back to the failed policies that brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. That's what happened the last time they were in charge."

At a news conference, authors of the three conservative budgets bristled at the suggestion they were involved in "gotcha" politics. Instead, they argued they deserved credit for having the political courage to put their ideas up for votes, and criticized Democrats for not doing the same.

"I think this suggestion this could be, as you put it, a 'gotcha' moment, ignores the rather striking reality which is the failure to put forward something, and the willingness simply to stand back and criticize those who have put forward something is itself a gotcha," said Lee. "That's really the problem. Putting forward something isn't a gotcha. Criticizing those who do, while doing nothing, is."

[brotherplanet]

This whole bullshit today was nothing more than political posturing and nothing to do with even attempting to come up with an agreeable budget.. But please continue to act like this vote means anything except these idiots earned pretty good taxpayer money today not doing a fucking thing to help the American people..

No, you actually highlighted what it meant and yet somehow missed it.


Going into the day, everyone knew none of the bills would get the 51 votes needed to succeed. And, as Republicans had calculated, the president's budget got zero yes votes, providing Republicans with the political ammunition they sought for the campaign trail this year.



And this shit doesn't help...



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.

[Luminiferous]

This whole bullshit today was nothing more than political posturing and nothing to do with even attempting to come up with an agreeable budget.. But please continue to act like this vote means anything except these idiots earned pretty good taxpayer money today not doing a fucking thing to help the American people..

No, you actually highlighted what it meant and yet somehow missed it.


Going into the day, everyone knew none of the bills would get the 51 votes needed to succeed. And, as Republicans had calculated, the president's budget got zero yes votes, providing Republicans with the political ammunition they sought for the campaign trail this year.

I didn't miss it you fucking clown.. I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN FUCKING RED.

Unless you are referring to your italicizing the Republitards political ammunition and equaling that to "helping the American people" by getting Romney in the White House..

And this shit doesn't help...


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.

And continue to waste time?

Yes...maybe the Democrits should have argued over it. Maybe the senators could have stretched the stupidity into the rest of the week knowing full well NONE of them were going to get any budget passed......

It's good work if you can find it huh?

[brotherplanet]

I didn't miss it you fucking clown.. I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN FUCKING RED.

Hey, bonehead, then why did you write...

But please continue to act like this vote means anything except these idiots earned pretty good taxpayer money today not doing a fucking thing to help the American people..

It's like you didn't even realize you highlighted the answer to your own comment.



It's not about wasting time, it's not about the dems deciding to not waste a week on it (which they couldn't since they couldn't argue Obama's numbers)... It's about this one simple sound bite...



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

[FullMetalWhackit]

Congress hasn't passed a budget in the last three years. The only way things are getting funded is through continuing resolutions.

[Luminiferous]

Hey, bonehead, then why did you write...

But please continue to act like this vote means anything except these idiots earned pretty good taxpayer money today not doing a fucking thing to help the American people..

It's like you didn't even realize you highlighted the answer to your own comment.

That was my answer to YOU and your entire reason for posting that "Obama's budget plan was defeated 99-0."
You were acting like it meant the entire senate was against the president's plan.. Same for the House vote and it being labeled an "embarrassing defeat."

(When in fact, it wasn't people voting against it because they were against the president's plan, but a bunch of partisan idiots dick fighting on the floor over budget plans that were not even close to being acceptable or passable today..)

Your initial posting of the article was attempting to represent the entire senate and house were against the president's idea, when in fact, it was merely numbers and not the actual budget proposal.. NOBODY is going to vote on that and look like a complete jackass..
It had no chance, like any of the conservative ideas presented today..

[Danzig in the Dark]

Another failure by cryptoRepublican brotherplanet. When are you going to realize no one actually buys your "I'm impartial, I'm fair and balanced." schtick?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

It's not about wasting time, it's not about the dems deciding to not waste a week on it (which they couldn't since they couldn't argue Obama's numbers)... It's about this one simple sound bite...

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 Senators do not "argue Obama's numbers." They get them scored by the Congressional Budget Office and then vote based on the CBO's analysis. The fact that Sessions did not have a CBO score for this condensed document says it was not a serious document. Ask yourself a question dumb ass, why not simply vote on the budget that was scored by the CBO? Why condense it and then vote on it? Of course the condensed budget was different. Show some common sense asshole.

Also, you embarrass yourself again by parroting articles from biased sources. Washington Times is about as bad as it gets. The article is full of factually inaccurate statements. The GOP budget approved by the House (Ryan budget) adds 5 trillion to the national debt, not 3.1 trillion. That is' the CBO score based on Ryan's far fetched claim that he will close loopholes to make his huge tax cuts revenue neutral. A more realistic score would show much higher deficits, certainly higher than 6.4 trillion. Ryan has not specified a single loophole he would close and he's had a year to come up with it.

These are the deficits under the GOP budget according to the CBO: 2012: $995 billion; 2013: $698 billion; 2014: $489 billion; 2015: $431 billion; 2016: $478 billion; 2017: $407 billion; 2018: $378 billion; 2019: $415 billion; 2020: $405 billion; and 2021: $391 billion. That's 5 trillion, not 3.1 trillion. Again, 5 trillion assuming his tax cuts are revenue neutral (far fetched assumption).

You fail again asshole.

[brotherplanet]

Your initial posting of the article was attempting to represent the entire senate and house were against the president's idea, when in fact, it was merely numbers and not the actual budget proposal..[/color][/b]

I purposely didn't write any opinion in my initial post.

I posted an article and after opinions were given I pointed out where I thought the main point was, which in no way made the Republicans look good and Obama bad. It showed that Obama's numbers were a joke and the Republicans were being petty. No one looked good.

Though if the Republicans run with this they've got a great sound bite, which is pretty much what people listen to nowadays. Hell, the title of the article in and of itself is the sound bite.