GOP DROPS FILIBUSTER, Obama gets His budget with $1 trillion tax hike!

[francoHFW]

Yeah, like they believe a pile of Pubcrappe like you...

 

[francoHFW]

"Tax hikes" turn out to be loopholes cutting on the bloated rich...

 

[Trajan]

While that is true, it is only a half-truth. A budget that passed the Senate by a simple majority the first time can only become enacted if the House passes it without a single change. If the House makes even the smallest change, the changed budget goes back to the Senate where it will need 60 votes to pass from then on.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

you didn't know shit about the budget process till I had to embarrass you ( again) and tell you about it homer.

I was answering this posters idiotic assertions. ( and the bill with house changes, is no longer considered 'concurrent', and can be sent back to committee, either approved or changed , again, voted as a simple majority then sent back to the house, again)


want to try exercising your wit ( poorly ) on why they are not adhering to regular order in the process? where is obamas budget request?


"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change."
-Confucius

Again you show your complete stupidity while pretending to be a know-it-all.

What you again left out with your second half-truth is that before the changed bill can be voted upon and passed by a simple majority, debate must be stopped which still takes 60 votes because there is no time limit on debating the changed budget!!!!!

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

no ed, you've pulled a boner again, debate on a Reconciliation measure has built in limit of 20 hours, (10 hours for a conference report). I think you're confused ed. you need to read, very carefully what I said.....again.

 

[tinydancer]

Not reported on the Pub propaganda machine- all the "tax hikes" are cutting loopholes on the bloated rich, half of whom, the Dems of course, WANT THEM!

U.S. Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years | Reuters

Of course the House will kill this, but at least we don't have to hear the Pub BS about no Dems budgets anymore.

BTW, they have put the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling crisis!!!!! off till September thank god and made it possible for the gov't to lessen the effects of the sequester....also not televised ....lol. Hallelujah ANYWAY!

The disfunction has mainly not allowed cuts that hurt the recovery., though has also stopped any jobs/infrastructure bills, which is STUPID.

I'm just glad that the Democrat Senate stopped blowing each other and at least tried a budget.

This is what kills me about you libs. Your reps don't do jack shit year end and year out. But you love your losers.

 

[OKTexas]

You folks might want to read this before you continue arguing about budget resolutions.

"The budget resolution is never sent to the President, nor does it become law. It does not provide budget authority or raise or lower revenues; instead, it is a guide for the House and Senate as they consider various budget-related bills, including appropriations and tax measures. Both the House and Senate have established parliamentary rules to enforce some of these spending ceilings when appropriations measures are considered on the House or Senate floor, respectively."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-684.pdf

 

[Papageorgio]

Not reported on the Pub propaganda machine- all the "tax hikes" are cutting loopholes on the bloated rich, half of whom, the Dems of course, WANT THEM!

U.S. Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years | Reuters

Of course the House will kill this, but at least we don't have to hear the Pub BS about no Dems budgets anymore.

BTW, they have put the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling crisis!!!!! off till September thank god and made it possible for the gov't to lessen the effects of the sequester....also not televised ....lol. Hallelujah ANYWAY!

The disfunction has mainly not allowed cuts that hurt the recovery., though has also stopped any jobs/infrastructure bills, which is STUPID.

I'm just glad that the Democrat Senate stopped blowing each other and at least tried a budget.

This is what kills me about you libs. Your reps don't do jack shit year end and year out. But you love your losers.

I think the GOP should just table the budget, just like Reid did. That would be so funny and all the little Demmies on this board would go freaking nuts!

 

[OKTexas]

Not reported on the Pub propaganda machine- all the "tax hikes" are cutting loopholes on the bloated rich, half of whom, the Dems of course, WANT THEM!

U.S. Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years | Reuters

Of course the House will kill this, but at least we don't have to hear the Pub BS about no Dems budgets anymore.

BTW, they have put the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling crisis!!!!! off till September thank god and made it possible for the gov't to lessen the effects of the sequester....also not televised ....lol. Hallelujah ANYWAY!

The disfunction has mainly not allowed cuts that hurt the recovery., though has also stopped any jobs/infrastructure bills, which is STUPID.

I'm just glad that the Democrat Senate stopped blowing each other and at least tried a budget.

This is what kills me about you libs. Your reps don't do jack shit year end and year out. But you love your losers.

I think the GOP should just table the budget, just like Reid did. That would be so funny and all the little Demmies on this board would go freaking nuts!

Neither house of congress considers the others budget resolutions, only the resulting spending bills. Read the link I posted above.

 

[edthecynic]

you didn't know shit about the budget process till I had to embarrass you ( again) and tell you about it homer.

I was answering this posters idiotic assertions. ( and the bill with house changes, is no longer considered 'concurrent', and can be sent back to committee, either approved or changed , again, voted as a simple majority then sent back to the house, again)


want to try exercising your wit ( poorly ) on why they are not adhering to regular order in the process? where is obamas budget request?


"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change."
-Confucius

Again you show your complete stupidity while pretending to be a know-it-all.

What you again left out with your second half-truth is that before the changed bill can be voted upon and passed by a simple majority, debate must be stopped which still takes 60 votes because there is no time limit on debating the changed budget!!!!!

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

no ed, you've pulled a boner again, debate on a Reconciliation measure has built in limit of 20 hours, (10 hours for a conference report). I think you're confused ed. you need to read, very carefully what I said.....again.

Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate. But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

 

[francoHFW]

Not reported on the Pub propaganda machine- all the "tax hikes" are cutting loopholes on the bloated rich, half of whom, the Dems of course, WANT THEM!

U.S. Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years | Reuters

Of course the House will kill this, but at least we don't have to hear the Pub BS about no Dems budgets anymore.

BTW, they have put the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling crisis!!!!! off till September thank god and made it possible for the gov't to lessen the effects of the sequester....also not televised ....lol. Hallelujah ANYWAY!

The disfunction has mainly not allowed cuts that hurt the recovery., though has also stopped any jobs/infrastructure bills, which is STUPID.

I'm just glad that the Democrat Senate stopped blowing each other and at least tried a budget.

This is what kills me about you libs. Your reps don't do jack shit year end and year out. But you love your losers.

I think the GOP should just table the budget, just like Reid did. That would be so funny and all the little Demmies on this board would go freaking nuts!

Nothing has passed the congress since 2/4/2010, dingbat, when Pubs got 41 votes in the Senate. The only diff is the Pub a-holes didn't filibuster this. The real news is they all put off the disfunctional self wounds till September. The GOP isn't fecking the recovery anymore- what next?

 

[francoHFW]

Economist:

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.



Pubs LOVE passing BS that has no chance. Dems not so much. They don't have a huge propaganda machine.

 

[Trajan]

Again you show your complete stupidity while pretending to be a know-it-all.

What you again left out with your second half-truth is that before the changed bill can be voted upon and passed by a simple majority, debate must be stopped which still takes 60 votes because there is no time limit on debating the changed budget!!!!!

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

no ed, you've pulled a boner again, debate on a Reconciliation measure has built in limit of 20 hours, (10 hours for a conference report). I think you're confused ed. you need to read, very carefully what I said.....again.

Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate. But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.

I am not sure you even know what you are arguing anymore, running around google trying to shoe horn arguments is not going to cut it .....( and yes I know that their vote was non binding, hello).


a filibuster is cut off by ending debate on the (a) bill, by invoking cloture which requires the 3/5ths. The (a) Budget measure bill cannot be held up due to the 20 hour built in limit.

Binding bills in the Senate are passed by a majority vote.

Inserting a Reconciliation directive into budget bill changes the way this process is managed, thats why they do it ( or not).

the budget bill that has been passed by a majority in the senate and passed to the house who pass it, may come back with changes and voted on again via a simple majority, ( OR they may as I said several posts back send the bill back to the committee(s) and create another conference report) ..............when they bring it back up, it gets a simple majority vote, the only proviso being, a point of order objection where in a senator objects via a point of order that he/she claims, an amendment or provision is found to be- 'extraneous', ( the Byrd rule) that is not pertaining to fiscal measures, examples- authorizations of discretionary spending ?, a no no, changes to social security? a no no, civil rights laws changed? a no no, and read this carefully Ed- any entitlement changes, tax cuts that cost money beyond the five (or more) years covered by the Bill, unless these projected costs are fully offset by other changes in the bill ( this is why Bushs budget where in the Tax Cuts were enacted had to sunset at the 10 year mark btw).


so, IF there is found to be extraneous amendments etc., THEN, and only then, can any 3/5ths vote threshold be called for and that would be to waive the amendment or it is stripped from the bill.

 

[Stephanie]

I just wonder how many bribes they had to give out to get this ugly thing passed

 

[drivebymedia]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

Obama's 2009 budget.

 

[eflatminor]

Again we see the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood continue lying in the face of the truth. Your "quote" did not come from the White House but from the OPINION of the writer, as you well know.

Here is what the White House ACTUALLY said:



Don't you assholes ever get tired of lying?????

The opinion of every reasonable person out there. Even your White House quote cannot claim that what Sessions put forward was that different to the Obama budget, only what the budget "could" do, which is true of any budget.

And for a THIRD time, why didn't the Dems simply put forth Obama's budget with the "policy language"???

Only a...asshole...would avoid the truth. Good luck with that.

You just can't stop yourself from lying, can you? If the little lying fairy Sessons' bill was no different, he would not have wasted his time rewriting it and would have submitted Obama's. The little lying fairy's bill was rewritten specifically to be different or it would not have been written at all. Only an would not be able to see that.

On the other hand, only an asshole would avoid a direct question three times in a row. If Sessons' bill was so different, which it was NOT, why didn't the Dems simply submit Obama's???

Never mind, nobody expects you to be honest about this, which is what makes you less of an asshole and more a lying hypocrite unwilling to debate with even a modicum of reasonableness. But then, you're clearly an asshole too! Good luck with that, asshole

 

[drivebymedia]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

Obama's 2009 budget.

Bush's 2009 budget was passed in 2008 effective 10/2008 to 10/2009.

As Republicans love to say, there is no 'Obama' 2009 budget ... or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013

The Senate just passed Obama's 2014 budget.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

I understand them, you apparently, don't. nor wish to, example-

obama and the dem house and senate passed the April 2009 budget bill....there was no rules to block anything...they were powerless, there is NO filibuster to be had...see how that works?

Now care to tell me why they did not create a budget for say a 2011 budget or 2012?


here-


April 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget
snip-

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

In the Senate, the final vote was 55-43, taken with Vice President Joseph Biden serving as presiding officer, an unusual occurrence.


Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com


hey Ed...check the vote counts and read, what I wrote, one more time....and, read the ENTIRE article you posted, you know like the bottom half.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

Obama's 2009 budget.

Bush's 2009 budget was passed in 2008 effective 10/2008 to 10/2009.

As Republicans love to say, there is no 'Obama' 2009 budget ... or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013

The Senate just passed Obama's 2014 budget.

wrong on 2 counts 1) obama did sign a budget in 2009, as I have added for you above and 2) obama has NOT submitted a budget this year...

 

[drivebymedia]

Yes, the mechanics of getting a budget passed are complex and most likely, many Senators - and certainly most House members - don't under stand them.

Bottom line is Republicans have used a snake pit of rules to block Obama's budgets for 4 years, and have continued spending under Bush's 2009 deficit budget by "continuing Resolution"

Bush's budgets have tripled the debt over what he inherited from Clinton.

That is all we voters need to know.

I understand them, you apparently, don't. nor wish to, example-

obama and the dem house and senate passed the April 2009 budget bill....there was no rules to block anything...they were powerless, there is NO filibuster to be had...see how that works?

Now care to tell me why they did not create a budget for say a 2011 budget or 2012?


here-

snip-

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

In the Senate, the final vote was 55-43, taken with Vice President Joseph Biden serving as presiding officer, an unusual occurrence.


Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com


hey Ed...check the vote counts and read, what I wrote, one more time....and, read the ENTIRE article you posted, you know like the bottom half.

Bush's 2009 Budget:

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.


2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

Obama's 2009 budget.

Bush's 2009 budget was passed in 2008 effective 10/2008 to 10/2009.

As Republicans love to say, there is no 'Obama' 2009 budget ... or 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013

The Senate just passed Obama's 2014 budget.

wrong on 2 counts 1) obama did sign a budget in 2009, as I have added for you above and 2) obama has NOT submitted a budget this year...

You love to lie with your half-truths. Obama signed the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill 6 months into FY 2009, most of which was spent after the Bush fiscal 2009 budget ended. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill is NOT the FY 2009 budget signed by Bush, it was a supplemental spending bill, not a full budget bill.