no no no no Re no publi no can no no Party no has zero votes for budget

[Craig234]

Not one single Republican vote for the budget that disappointed liberals in a number of areas.

If anyone has any doubt how radical the Republicans are, look at that vote.

And if anyone needs even more, look at the fact that most Republicans then went on to vote for yet another 'tax cut for the rich', that did not pass because they're not in power.

Yes, that's what we need after 25 years of the rich returning to the largest share of the wealth since just before the great depression - to concentrate wealth in their hands more.

Faced with a huge economic crisis, with them admitting they were terribly fiscally irresponsible, soon after the nation elected the Democrats to fix these problems, the Republican position is to oppose the Democrats' budget. You would think they might have just a little humility and respect for the nation's choice of Obama and vote for this budget, even if they vote against later budgets, rather than playing the political game of strengthening their record of opposition for the next campaign, using the logic of 'when you are running against someone good, you have to run against them as if they're horrible, because you don't get many votes running against a 'good candidate', so oppose them as if they're terrible even when they're right.'

This isn't like the Bush tax cuts, which was a difference in party ideology and priorities, how to spend the supposed surplus in a comfortable period.

The Republicans are not about the issues in their marketing - at least, the leadership isn't. It's about the rich, and at the expense of the rest of America.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol @ the OP for suggesting the R's should just bend over and vote for the largest and most bloated budget in the history of the world.

Extra helping of "hope" koolaid today?

 

[winnar111]

Might be because 'this' budget increases domestic spending to radical proportions.

 

[ProfJohn]

What about the 20 Democrats who voted against the budget as well???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What about the 20 Democrats who voted against the budget as well???

Shh....

Clearly they are just "playing the political game of strengthening their record of opposition for the next campaign"

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not one single Republican vote for the budget that disappointed liberals in a number of areas.

If anyone has any doubt how radical the Republicans are, look at that vote.

And if anyone needs even more, look at the fact that most Republicans then went on to vote for yet another 'tax cut for the rich', that did not pass because they're not in power.

Yes, that's what we need after 25 years of the rich returning to the largest share of the wealth since just before the great depression - to concentrate wealth in their hands more.

Faced with a huge economic crisis, with them admitting they were terribly fiscally irresponsible, soon after the nation elected the Democrats to fix these problems, the Republican position is to oppose the Democrats' budget. You would think they might have just a little humility and respect for the nation's choice of Obama and vote for this budget, even if they vote against later budgets, rather than playing the political game of strengthening their record of opposition for the next campaign, using the logic of 'when you are running against someone good, you have to run against them as if they're horrible, because you don't get many votes running against a 'good candidate', so oppose them as if they're terrible even when they're right.'

This isn't like the Bush tax cuts, which was a difference in party ideology and priorities, how to spend the supposed surplus in a comfortable period.

The Republicans are not about the issues in their marketing - at least, the leadership isn't. It's about the rich, and at the expense of the rest of America.

The problem is, the moderate republicans got replaced by moderate dems in the last two elections.

The Dems cant get all the Blue Dogs, and you think the remaining, mostly strong Republicans are going to say yes?

Fiscal conservatism is supposed to be a tenent of the GOP. You expect them to say yes to the single largest expansion of government(in terms of employees and spending) in United States History?

To put it bluntly. Anyone that supports the budget is stupid. Its a short term measure that has HUGE financial implications for the US long term. Dems say the W ran the country into the ground. Well Obama is digging the grave and burying it.

What is happening also the SINGLE biggest theft in the history of the world. This money is coming from the pockets of future generations(if the US is still around when they reap what we are sowing).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What about the 20 Democrats who voted against the budget as well???

What about them? The reason all the Republicans voted no is because they knew the legislation would pass anyway without their help, and so they pay no political price for opposing it. They don't have to worry about the government grinding to a halt with no budget, but now they can complain all they want about it in the 2010 campaign. Simple politics. It's just like the stimulus bill. The Republicans all voted against it because they knew that they could. The Democrats got 3 GOP Senators without meaningfully changing the bill, and had they needed 5, 6, 7 GOP senators they would have gotten them too.

Republicans are trying the old method of giving your opposition enough rope to hang themselves, which I think is going to be a hilarious and catastrophic failure. The economy will likely have picked up substantially by November of 2010, and even if it's not their doing, Obama and the Democrats will get credit for it. If that happens, opposing all their policies this whole time is going to blow up in the Republicans' collective face.

I don't really blame them for doing it, because I'm not sure what else they can do... they are trapped by their ideology. You can't argue for less regulation after a disaster caused by insufficient regulation, it's hard to argue for lower taxes on the rich when middle class incomes have stagnated the entire time you were in power, you can't run on your defense credentials after a catastrophic war in Iraq, so what do they do? Cross their fingers and pray to jeebus that the Democrats screw up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol @ the OP for suggesting

LOL @ CAD. Your R's SHOULD vote for the largest budget in the history of the world because they're no longer in control of the system. THEY are the ones who squandered the trillions and wrecked our economy. That bill was already due before Obama took office.

You're just griping about the way we're going to attack the problems your R's gave us. The good news is, your R's no longer run the executive OR the legislative branch so they don't get to call the shots.

Extra helping of "hope" koolaid today?

Like it or not, you're on this ride so you'd better hope. Given your R's track record over the last eight years, the fact that they're not in power is at least a little ray of hope in the otherwise very dark and frightening times they gave us.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

lol @ the OP for suggesting

LOL @ CAD. Your R's SHOULD just for the largest budget in the history of the world because when they're no longer in control of the system, THEY are the ones who squandered the trillions and wrecked our economy. That bill was already due before Obama took office.

You're just griping about the way we're going to attack the problems your R's gave us. The good news is, your R's no longer run the executive OR the legislative branch so they don't get to call the shots.

Extra helping of "hope" koolaid today?

Like it or not, you're on this ride so you'd better hope. Given your R's track record over the last eight years, the fact that they're not in power is at least a little ray of hope in the otherwise very dark and frightening times they gave us.

Im tired you saying "they wrecked the economy." No single person or party wrecked the economy. There are just as many liberals dems to blame as there are Rs. There are just as many Dem CEOs to blame as well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wow how things change...

Harry Reid in 2008 speaking of Bush's $3.1 billion budget link

"This budget is fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing the skyrocketing debt,'

Harry Reid in 2009 speaking of Obama's $3.6 billion budget link

?This responsible budget will start cleaning up the mistakes of the past and make critical investments in our future,?

So a budget with a projected $410 deficit is irresponsible, but a budget with a $1.1 billion deficit is a 'responsible budget'

It is amazing how foolish these guys look.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow how things change...

Harry Reid in 2008 speaking of Bush's $3.1 billion budget link

"This budget is fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing the skyrocketing debt,'

Harry Reid in 2009 speaking of Obama's $3.6 billion budget link

?This responsible budget will start cleaning up the mistakes of the past and make critical investments in our future,?

So a budget with a projected $410 deficit is irresponsible, but a budget with a $1.1 billion deficit is a 'responsible budget'

It is amazing how foolish these guys look.

Probably because most people consider the amount you're spending to be less important than what you're spending it on.

Blow $200 at the strip club? Probably irresponsible.

Spend $200,000 on cancer treatments? Responsible.

Of course Reid is playing politics with this one, as your own party's budgets are always fabulous and the other party's are awful, but there's no inherent hypocrisy.

 

[ProfJohn]

eskimo, to many of us on the right the term 'responsible' and government spending do not go hand and hand.

This $3.6 billion budget is double the 1999 budget of $1.8 billion. So in 10 years we have doubled the size of the Federal government. There is nothing responsible about that.

 

[bamacre]

It's sad how these pricks in Washington make hypocrites out of everyone.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Wow how things change...
.
.
So a budget with a projected $410 deficit is irresponsible, but a budget with a $1.1 billion deficit is a 'responsible budget'

Some things never change. For example, YOU and your never ending attempt to distract and divert attention from the truth. :roll:

Did you happen to forget that Bush's "budget" convenienly left little items like the cost of his wars at over $100 billion per year and growing while Obama has included those ongoing costs in his? :Q

It is amazing how foolish these guys look.

Pot, meet kettle. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
eskimo, to many of us on the right the term 'responsible' and government spending do not go hand and hand.

This $3.6 billion budget is double the 1999 budget of $1.8 billion. So in 10 years we have doubled the size of the Federal government. There is nothing responsible about that.

Not as 'many' as you think actually, the libertarian small government types seem to thrive on here and on the internet, but they are a small fraction of the overall electorate. That's why the budget keeps getting bigger. What candidates have you seen run on the idea of drastically cutting the federal budget? How well did they do?

Regardless of that, your definition of what is responsible and Harry Reid's definition are probably two very different things, and since you were using Reid's quotes then and now you necessarily have to use his definition or your post makes no sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's sad how these pricks in Washington make hypocrites out of everyone.

Just as sad as pricks like you who carp and carp but can't form a political philosophy anybody but a few nuts are attracted to. You might as well be the only person on earth who knows people hate themselves.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Did you happen to forget that Bush's "budget" convenienly left little items like the cost of his wars at over $100 billion per year and growing while Obama has included those ongoing costs in his?

What's the difference? We're still at war and still paying for it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's sad how these pricks in Washington make hypocrites out of everyone.

Just as sad as pricks like you who carp and carp but can't form a political philosophy anybody but a few nuts are attracted to. You might as well be the only person on earth who knows people hate themselves.

At least you remember why I chose the avatar.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Great, another party over principle thread. :thumbsdown:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, that's what we need after 25 years of the rich returning to the largest share of the wealth since just before the great depression - to concentrate wealth in their hands more.

Yeah because Obama has shown he cares about the little man....

EDIT: :disgust:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Wow how things change...
.
.
So a budget with a projected $410 deficit is irresponsible, but a budget with a $1.1 billion deficit is a 'responsible budget'

Some things never change. For example, YOU and your never ending attempt to distract and divert attention from the truth. :roll:

Did you happen to forget that Bush's "budget" convenienly left little items like the cost of his wars at over $100 billion per year and growing while Obama has included those ongoing costs in his? :Q

It is amazing how foolish these guys look.

Pot, meet kettle. :laugh:

Ok... so we add the cost of the war in 2009 to Bush's budget and we end up with a $510 billion deficit, which is still less than half of Obama's.

Or to be fair let's just look at total spending, prior to all the stimulus and bank bailouts.

Bush asked for $3.1 trillion, which after including the cost of the wars would end up at $3.2 trillion.

Obama is asking for $3.6 trillion or $400 billion MORE than Bush asked for just a year ago.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Harvey

Did you happen to forget that Bush's "budget" convenienly left little items like the cost of his wars at over $100 billion per year and growing while Obama has included those ongoing costs in his?

What's the difference? We're still at war and still paying for it.

Yeah, that is a problem. I covered that in my first post, and I'm not happy about it. We were saddled with this by his thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief.

The above was to shed a little light on the bogus numbers PJ and others are bitching about.

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Im tired you saying "they wrecked the economy." No single person or party wrecked the economy. There are just as many liberals dems to blame as there are Rs. There are just as many Dem CEOs to blame as well.

Tough! Get used to it, and get over it. The Bushwhackos started their war of LIES in Iraq. That's trillions of squandered dollars in current and future debt, and as of 4/3/09, 4,263 squandered American lives.

They controlled the agencies charged with overseeing their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors for the last eight years. That only took us from surpluses to devastating debt.

I'll continue to say "they wrecked the economy" because they did. I know there were plenty of others involved, but without them and the crimes they committed against us, we would not be in this mess. They were at the center of it. They were the catalyst. It's on them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Great, another party over principle thread. :thumbsdown:

Hey, that's MY line!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... so we add the cost of the war in 2009 to Bush's budget and we end up with a $510 billion deficit, which is still less than half of Obama's.

Or to be fair let's just look at total spending, prior to all the stimulus and bank bailouts.

Bush asked for $3.1 trillion, which after including the cost of the wars would end up at $3.2 trillion.

Obama is asking for $3.6 trillion or $400 billion MORE than Bush asked for just a year ago.

The Republicans led us - not only them, but they were the leaders - into a major economic problem where business and consumer activity is greatly reduced.

That leaves only one way to keep the economy functioning - the government spending, just as WWII's government spending help the economy recover, see Keynesian theory.

When Republicans brought home an infection and Democrats spend a lot for the medicine to cure it, the blame for the spending doesn't lie with the democrats.

Republicans know that their best chance in 2010 lies in trying to lie to enough Americans that the big-spending Democrats are the problem, and so they're planning to do that.

And they know they count on you to do your fair part in spreading the message on their behalf. Well they don't know it, but they can.

In fact, it's been suggested at times, that some Republicans are aware of a cycle they like - the cycle is for Republicans to break things in a way that profits the rich, until the public replaces them with Democrats who fix the problems but are vulnerable to attack for the costs, and then the Republicans blame the Democrats and bring out the 'small government low spending low taxes' song and dance and get elected to repeat the cycle. They like having Democrats periodically get elected and take the blame for the costs of the fixes.

I'm not sure how much I buy into that, I think they'd rather keep power, but there's a kernal of truth to it. And over time, that cycle has the effect of transferring wealth to them.

The myths are all ready for use - The President-Clinton signed deregulation combined with the Democratic-driven sub-prime loans that went to irresponsible minority buyers crashed our economy, and the Obama administration took advantage of it to skyrocket spending like Democrats like to do, and we have got to elect Republicans to stand up for fiscal responsibility before the Democrats spend even more. Neat little bundle of deceptions ready for the campaign.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Im tired you saying "they wrecked the economy." No single person or party wrecked the economy. There are just as many liberals dems to blame as there are Rs. There are just as many Dem CEOs to blame as well.

The error you make is saying "just as many". The problems are caused more by the *core ideology* of the Republicans than by anything the Democrats support; many Dems were part of the problem, but not 'just as many', and the leadership was mostly Republican - for exampoe, the three Republicans who sponsored the bill that deregulated credit default swaps (which was signed by Clinton).

So, are you saying you will support the group who got it right, when so many got it wrong?

That group is the progressive Democrats. They've been more right than any other faction.

But you are a card-carrying member of the right-wing cult who wouldn't consider actually being consistent and supporting them, correct?

But I agree with you there's plenty of blame to go around - the same thing progressive Democrats have been warning about for many years, the corruption of the system by the corporate money, allowed for people to makeshort-term profits at the expense of the nation, by lobbying Congress to give them the deregulation, while the public was not effective at fighitng that and protecting the nation. It's a big mess needing systemic fixes, as we've long said.

We'd be a lot worse though had McCain won the presidency.