How will the Senate pay for extended unemployment costs?

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Obama's inability to turn a few Republican senators shows weak leadership. The only way he can govern is to issue executive orders like a king. Other presidents who did not have control of congress managed to get things done
Oh the things that you don't know!

President Obama needs to to turn A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS to get anything passed. That's because of the GOP's Hastert Rule, which says that the Republican Speaker will not bring up anything for a vote unless a majority of Republicans favor it.

You got that? The House is no longer ruled by majority vote, it's ruled by a majority Republicans votes only. And to get anything done, Obama needs to turn 117 of them. And that's the president's fault right?

When the Democrats control the House, they have no such anti-democracy rule.

When Democrat House Leadership proclaimed "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it", the dictator's minions nuked any and all discussion about the monstrosity that was shoved down the throats of every citizen in America.

Harry Reid has personally prevented over 30 bills passed by the House from coming to a vote by the Senate. ObeyMe's puppet doesn't want his minions to have to show the American people how they really feel about issues that affect them all.
Forky - pay attention, the conversation is about 2009 when the democrats had a huge majority. Interesting that the crew says 2009 is president Bush's budget but it was the 09 stimulus bill passed by democrats that blew it up.
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Forky - pay attention, the conversation is about 2009 when the democrats had a huge majority. Interesting that the crew says 2009 is president Bush's budget but it was the 09 stimulus bill passed by democrats that blew it up.


the stimulus package was not counted in the 2009 budget. You really enjoy making things up as you go along dont you?
It was spent in 2009, contributing to the deficit

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
It was spent in 2009, contributing to the deficit
No it wasn't. Anyway hoops, no one can say you're not consistent.

But spending wasn't the problem in 2009, it was revenue. A major economic catastrophe occurred in late 2008. Maybe you heard about it; it was in all the papers.

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
It was spent in 2009, contributing to the deficit
No it wasn't. Anyway hoops, no one can say you're not consistent
.


There were various tax cuts, extension of unemployment benefits, additional food stamp expenses & various other social spending as well as spending on "shovel ready" jobs - all contributing to the 2009 deficit
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
It was spent in 2009, contributing to the deficit
No it wasn't. Anyway hoops, no one can say you're not consistent
.


There were various tax cuts, extension of unemployment benefits, additional food stamp expenses & various other social spending as well as spending on "shovel ready" jobs - all contributing to the 2009 deficit
Yeah, but that's not what you wrote.

The majority of spending came after 2009.

By the close of FY 2009, $241.9 billion had been spent: $92.8 billion in tax relief, $86.5 billion in unemployment and other benefits and $62.6 billion in job creation grants.

I guess in liberal life $241b is chump change.

Apparently obama and compnay didn't think the 2009 budget was sufficient so they added $241b, thus taking ownership of all 2009 spending.

Remember when obama said he was going to go thru the federal budget line by line and elminate unnecessary spending.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I like the "as usual" comment.

The deficit has been cut in half under this administration largely on the philosophy that government spending needs to be paid for....a concept completely foreign to the previous administration. I get worried when the government says they will pay for something by cutting taxes which is the standard sales pitch of politicians Boilerman historically has voted for.


? can I have what your smoking there PJ? I wouldn't need those Vicodins anymore...
Chef, it you don't know the difference between the deficit and the national debt, go ask somebody.


What was Obama's budget deficits? as shown on a prior graph they were mostly OVER a TRILLION DOLLARS. W's were around $400 bil or so except for the last one.

I forgive you for the it instead of if. We all make mistakes. Mine was I actually voted for Bill Clinton..twice.
PJ, I always complained about Bush's high spending.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Obama also didn't have the votes to change Obamacare either. Apparently the house and senate can by bypassed, so again, why didn't Obama change the budget?



Dont blame Republicans for blowing up the deficit....Blame Democrats for not cleaning up the Republican's mess fast enough. That'll make a great platform for the GOP in 2016.

Boilerman was the head cheerleader for the multi-TRILLION dollar war in Iraq and tax policy of the Bush Administration. But now he's upset the pay-mechanisms of a 10 billion dollar bill might not be 100% reconciled in the first quarter this year.

Like I said...its a little hard to take the B-Man seriously on this topic.


Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now