A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Blame for no Obama budget in 3-1/2 years? (msg)

Posted: Aug 12, 2012

Posts below regarding blaming Republicans. You must have learned the blame game from Obozo himself. No, if you would research it, you would see that Obama's budget was voted down in the Senate - UNANIMOUSLY. In case you don't know, dear, that's a lot of Democrats. He has had 3-1/2 years to pass a budget. He is a dismal failure - an empty suit, who can read a teleprompter pretty well and is O so Cool. Gag.

;

And if you would simply....sm - JTBB

[ In Reply To ..]
look at the facts instead of just repeating the Fox motto of "oh no they didn't" then you would understand more about not only what Obama has done, but what your beloved republican party has done as well the basic structure of our government. As I've stated many times on this board, dear, just saying it isn't so means nothing.

So, nothing to say about the budget? Figured as much. - Aunt Sue

[ In Reply To ..]
:)

I have clearly and consistently...sm - JTBB

[ In Reply To ..]
pointed out the facts as you well know, as you actually just pointed that out in the OP. Memory refresher: "Posts below regarding blaming Republicans."

You, on the other hand, have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Ordinarily, I tell posters to do their own research, but.... - Aunt Sue

[ In Reply To ..]
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-budget-fails-414-0-as-democrats-bail/article/1202571

LOL...Did you actually READ the link...sm - JTBB

[ In Reply To ..]
you posted? The one that states that Mulvaney’s version of the budget was nothing like the blueprints submitted by Obama and basically just gutted the middle class and the elderly?

Thank you for proving my point.

Maybe you should do more of your own research - and read more than one article

[ In Reply To ..]

I hate it when people only read what they want to see and not actually take the time to read more than one source.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/mar/28/obama-budget-defeated-414-0/

Washington Times 03/28/12 (bold emphasis mine)

President Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.

The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama's budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

But no Democrats accepted the challenge.

They have their own alternative they wrote, which closely tracks the president's deficit numbers, though it changes the details of his plan. That plan will receive a vote on Thursday, as will Mr. Ryan's proposal.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote

White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Mulvaney seemed to relish the idea of bringing up a proposal based on Obama's numbers, and openly wondered, tongue-in-cheek, why no Democrats sought to introduce it. He then criticized it by saying it does not foresee a balanced budget at any point in the future.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/

He’s right about the rejection. After Obama submitted his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal on Feb. 13, 2012, House Republicans put it up for a floor vote.

The result: 414-0 against.

The same thing happened a year earlier in the Senate. That vote: 97-0 against. Democrats didn’t support the plan because it has been supplanted by another deficit-reduction plan Obama had later outlined. Republican leaders demanded a vote on Obama’s budget to show that Democrats don’t support any detailed budget blueprint, according to The Hill.

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it," he said.

Is that enough research for you?

Wow, thanks for doing that fair and - balanced research for us!

[ In Reply To ..]
When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."

WHY was it UNANIMOUSLY voted against in the Senate? - Aunt Sue

[ In Reply To ..]
do you suppose it could be because Obozo submitted a "joke" budget so that he wouldn't have to be accountable?

Really, others have already.... - (see message)

[ In Reply To ..]
....addressed this question for you in other threads on this board, if one has the respect to give them their voice as well as one's own.

Govt. 101...sm - JTBB

[ In Reply To ..]
The president himself is not who passes or doesn't pass the budget. That's congress' job. He simply provides an outline for congress, who works out the details. In this process, pubs have managed to leave out a ton of details regarding how much money goes where, which would leave basically an empty shell with a bunch of fill in the blanks. I wouldn't sign it either.

Senate Democrats and Obozo hate fiscal responsibility (ala Simpson-Bowles) - LM

[ In Reply To ..]
Obozo is trying to destroy the country. 4 more years oughta do it.

You do realize you COMPLETELY negate anything - you say by the use of name calling

[ In Reply To ..]
If all you have to offer is name calling and language that is akin to that of a 4 year old, you completely cancel out anything that you may have to add that just might be valid. You didn't actually have anything to say that was valid, I'm just saying that on the off chance that you do some day, you'll be taken more seriously if you actually speak like an adult.

Okay. Obama hates fiscal responsibility. Better? - LM

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Marginally. - Got anything to back that up, though?

[ In Reply To ..]
You say he hates fiscal responsibility, yet he was the one that commissioned Simpson-Bowles and has supported those recommendations. Obama was the one that wanted tax cuts AND tax increases, thus leading to a reduction of the deficit. The Republicans are the ones that said nope, no way. Just tax cuts.

What else you got, besides just remarks like he hates fiscal responsibility. Do you have anything to back that up that doesn't come from Fox News?

He has NOT supported those recommendations. LSM again? (sm) - LM

[ In Reply To ..]
People will believe anything he hands out. It boggles the mind. Is it because he is so very cool?? Or just so likable? I don't get it.

What are your sources? - Here are some of mine

[ In Reply To ..]
You're right, he did not support ALL of the recommendations - he thought the defense cuts were too deep and reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday explained why President Obama never fully embraced the 2010 report of his fiscal commission, headed by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Erskine Bowles.

Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts.

Wow. Tax Cheat Geithner and The Hill (left wing blog) - sm - LM

[ In Reply To ..]
Look what our esteemed President has done with defense. He's selling, people buying. Unbelievable.

Besides very cool and likeable, he's also: - (see message)

[ In Reply To ..]
Extremely smart, compassionate, relatable, strong, decisive (Osama Bin Laden ring a bell?), appreciative, hard-working, thoughtful, flexible, and inclusive. Besides all that, he has known struggle and want at times in his life....something a lot of Americans can strongly identify with.

He admittedly has had things handed to him in life (sm) - If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny.

[ In Reply To ..]
due to affirmative action. He has rarely struggled. How do you think he got into Haavad when he was a doper all through high school - admittedly again. Osama Bin Laden, please. Flexible and inclusive - now those 2 caused me to laugh out loud - literally. He divides, where do you come up with inclusive? And flexible? Really? From what I've seen, it's his way or the highway. He got "healthcare" - for lack of a better name for it - passed in the dark of night by bribing and twisting arms. It was not bipartisan - at all, despite all his promises to the contrary. Do you know who actually wrote the "HC" bill?

someone needs a Happy Meal - yikes!

[ In Reply To ..]

Sometimes people don't like it when the truth smacks them upside the head. LOL - Makes me laugh

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

can't give up the "H" word? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

She does not negate any fact - Libs LOVE the namecalling

[ In Reply To ..]
Trouble is, only Libs/Dems want to determine what names can be used, against whom they are use.. just check out the Alphabet Sister posts...loaded with namecalling.

YOU lose all credibility because of hypocrsity and bias.

"YOU lose all credibility because of hypocrsity and bias" - that was easy

[ In Reply To ..]
you are hilarious.

Yeah, that's right....he's "trying" to - destroy the country.

[ In Reply To ..]
Anyone who truly believes that "destroying the country" is what Pres. Obama is TRYING TO DO is incredibly beyond reasonable discussion.

Yes. He is "trying" to. There are none so blind, as the saying goes. - Nonny

[ In Reply To ..]
Really.

He may be trying to do some things... - (see message)

[ In Reply To ..]
...that you don't agree with, but can you give any feasible motive for the President of the United States wanting to DESTROY this country, as has been said here?? Why on earth would he want to destroy it?

Again, you may not agree with his positions, but there are lots of people who do and do NOT see them as destructive. Now, if you say that YOU believe that "his success will destroy this country" (in your opinion), that is one thing....but to say that HE is trying to destroy it?? Why? Why would THAT be his goal?

I agree with this. (sm) - Another poster

[ In Reply To ..]
As the left wing radicals he associates with say, destroy it from within, build it the way you want it - 2 classes (he's pretty much already done that). He can be dictator for life. Why do you think so many of his associates are Communists, Weather Underground, Marxists, Mao lovers? Ask yourself why.

I agree with this. (sm) - Another poster - Sadly the posters that would

[ In Reply To ..]
most benefit from the oblivion and answer the questions you ask, all legit, will never do it. Sadly, by reading their posts, it is clear they think they are politically and socially superior; yet the exact opposite is true. These posters that continue to embrace "commie obammie", as I have seen him described, cannot give you 1 good solid example of any Obama socialist/communist policies that actually work and benefit the masses. Obama has continually done more to harm the middle and lower class, which includes the Obama supporters on this board, than any president in history. By their supporting posts of such destructive Obama policies and their immediate personal attacks on anyone that disagrees with them, amplifies their lack of mental faculties to reason through anything on their own.

I agree with you 100%. Excellent post. (sm) - Not-A-Com

[ In Reply To ..]
Of course they can't give any examples. This man who promised transparency has given us anything but. The "superior" liberals will never admit it though. They made a very big mistake and don't want to admit it.

Yeah, that's right....he's "trying" to - destroy the country. - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
"Anyone who truly does not believe that "destroying the country" is what Pres. Obama is TRYING TO DO is incredibly beyond reasonable discussion."

Not to mention they are incredibly naive, uninformed and so sucked up into party ideology swamp, they are clueless as to what is going on around them. On top of that, since all records sealed, bet Obama is NO WHERE as smart as posters on this board claim he is. Obozo probably could not pass basic math, 'coz he sure cannot figure out 1+1 equals 2 yet.

this might hurt... - ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]
"Feel free to love Romney’s tax plan or hate it. But beware of politicians and their friends who pretend it and Bowles-Simpson are the same thing. They are not."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0810/Romney-tax-plan-conceptually-close-to-Simpson-Bowles-No-way

This might hurt - Seems you have an issue with "pain"

[ In Reply To ..]
This might hurt
oh that stung...was it good for you? - ctmt

Very odd indeed that so many of your answers talk about imparting pain to another.....HMMMMMMMM

Did you read ANY of what I posted? - Clearly not

[ In Reply To ..]
And really, Obozo and name calling? Are you 12?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/

A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76418.html

The most obvious political vote of the session was a 0-99 roll call on President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint — which was offered by Republicans. While that tally is sure to become fodder for campaign ads, Democrats dismissed it as a political stunt since there was no real policy language attached to the Obama budget.

What they were voting on were AMENDMENTS that were proposed by Republicans that masqueraded as the President's plan but had no substantive policy language or had such destructive policy language it could not have passed.

you have to read beyond the headlines, Aunt Sue - ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama did not submit a "joke" budget, for goodness sake. Lots of posters here have gone out of their way to offer you a more complete picture of what is going on here with the budget vote. I know you are able to understand this information, so I can only conclude that you are not willing.

It's good to have a point of view, of course, but bias is never a good substitute for reasoning.

you have to read beyond the headlines, - ctmt - Try your own advice

[ In Reply To ..]
.

oh that stung...was it good for you? - ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]

Yes, actually. The fact remains he has not passed a budget in 3-1/2 years. FAIL! - Aunt Sue

[ In Reply To ..]
:)

the fact remains... - ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]
that you are too attached to partisan pandering to ponder the perils of pub prevarication.

Is that supposed to impress us? LOL - - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Only one impressed seems to be her - bet if you asked, she doesn't understand it

[ In Reply To ..]
.

oh that stung...was it good for you? - ctmt - Sure was :)

[ In Reply To ..]
Now I'm smoking a cigarette...You?

Just a guess on my part, but I think you need a new gig. - This one is old.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Yeah bossy-we'll move on when YOU do - Now post BENEATH me where posts belong

[ In Reply To ..]
Got tired of your same old same, yesterday insults, trolling, and outdated opinions, lack of insight and substance long ago. You're like a kitten chasing a string - fun to watch for a while, but gets boring fast.

Yeah, here I am beneath you (to humor you). Could be (sm) - Bossy

[ In Reply To ..]
the repeating the "outdated opinions" is because no one on the liberal side of the aisle ever addresses the issues. They only whine. We figure it's like dealing with children, maybe if we keep repeating it, someone might hear it. You know, kind of like "was it good for you?" stuff. LOL

I'm always smoking a cigarette - nm....ctmt

[ In Reply To ..]

That vote was clearly - an embarrassment for the WH.

[ In Reply To ..]
I remember it well. I also remember the mainstream media duck/cover/spin about it, trying to portray it in a good light.

Exactly. Can you imagine what the past 3-1/2 years (sm) - Nonny

[ In Reply To ..]
would have looked like if the LSM had actually done their job and report news, instead of just spinning like tops to cover his behind?

Found you post interesting since - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Especially since a member of the Obama campaign made an off the cuff comment that the biggest base of support Obama had was the journalists.

P.S. For those that want to flame and scream for sources, links, etc., "it's on the street" Just ask Harry Reid...lol

Boy, ain't it the truth. Talk about Commie media. It's here! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Good point - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
The entire White House, from Obama on down, look like a bumbling bunch of radical left-wing hippies that cannot remember where they placed thier toke, in between pitiful attempts to run a country that clearly despise. I would bet, if any of them were forced to take USA history tests and global history tests, they would fail miserably. Otherwise, they would know that their politics have never worked and never will.

That's correct. but once they destroy it, they can build it up in their own image. - Bunch of radicals

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Actually, it was more embarrassment for the Congress - since they were trying to play games

[ In Reply To ..]
These are men and women whom OUR TAXES pay for and they are playing games. They were not voting on a budget proposed by the president. They were voting on Republican presented and changed amendments that were intended to mimic the president's proposal in name only.

I have read a lot of articles on it just today because of this thread. The only sources that presented this as an embarrassment for the White House were far right wing "news" organizations or blogs. Even some of the more moderate right wing sites mentioned the gamesmanship that had gone on to get to that point.

Keep getting your news from Fox. You'll only ever get one point of view and/or angle.

Well of course!! The Lamestream Media doesn't report anything negative about our esteemed Pres - I'm surprised you don't know this.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I wasn't just reading the mainstream media articles - I like to read a variety of difference sources

[ In Reply To ..]
And I'll repeat my earlier comment that those of you who resort to name calling (and Lamestream Media is name calling at its best) will be taken MUCH more seriously if you actually speak like adults rather than 13 year old girls who giggle and repeat funny phrases that they say.

If you all would actually take the time to look at the actual facts of those so-called votes you would understand what I am talking about. I get why you don't, though, because that would take away the arguments that you use as "talking points" that don't really have any substance behind them.

If all you are going on is the sound bites that you get from listening to Fox News, then you're not going to know the whole story. Not all of the mainstream media is the enemy. Sometimes they actually do report the whole truth. If you only ever listen to one source, though, you will never find that out.

Looking simply at the outcome of a thing....sm - JTBB

[ In Reply To ..]
and completely ignoring the process by which that thing occurred is like making a cake without any ingredients. Just sayin.

Similar Messages:

Mar 25, 2015
Hmmm.....98 against. That includes some of the Dems. Could it be they are finally awakening!! One can hope. ...

Apr 29, 2011
http://factcheck.org/2011/04/factchecking-obamas-budget-speech/ ...

Mar 20, 2015
We have to find some humor in the Washington Stink that is so pervasive these days. Enjoy ... https://www.youtube.com/embed/xEYFFiEnUjQ ...

Mar 28, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msf1TJ8RpLI ...

Apr 11, 2011
See what you think. It's 205 pages. Can you hang in there that long to read it? ...

Apr 22, 2011
Some very interesting info in this article. President Barack Obama misrepresented the House Republicans’ budget plan at times and exaggerated its impact on U.S. residents during an April 13 speech on deficit reduction. Obama claimed the Republicans’ "Path to Prosperity" plan would cause "up to 50 million Americans … to lose their health insurance.” But that worst-case figure is based in part on speculation and assumptions. He said the GOP plan would repla ...

Apr 12, 2011
I'm not done looking at different reactions to FY2012. This one came from the National Taxpayers Union. It makes you stop and think how many times over the years this style of termination/reduction has been put in place by all other Presidents. Despite some worthy attempts at spending restraint, President Obama’s latest budget plan relies more heavily on new revenues, rosy economic assumptions, and accounting shifts than many taxpayers would expect, according to a speci ...

Feb 04, 2013
Obama Administration sent a letter to Ryan informing him that budget would be late due to the fact that things needed to be factored in after the fiscal cliff issue was resolved. Link below. Ryan seemed all surprised today and said he didn't know when they'd receive a budget from Obama, when the letter clearly stated it was going to be late, why it was late, and that they'd get it to him asap. Also, W2s and 1099s and other forms necessary to file taxes were also del ...

Jun 17, 2014
The Daily Caller: "Obama, Sebelius Blame ‘Right-Wing Media,’ ‘Billionaires’ For Obamacare Failures..." I can't stop laughing. Will Obama ever take responsibility for any of his failures? ...

Nov 06, 2012
Woooo Hoooo!!!!! ...

Sep 08, 2016
"The Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday filed fraud charges against the two top execs at for-profit college ITT Educational Services. The SEC fraud charges are the latest in a series of crackdowns on the industry, which Eisman exposed as preying on low-income students while saddling them with huge debt and worthless degrees. When ITT’s low-income students could no longer get private loans, the company created two off-balance-sheet trust vehicles and raised $441 million fr ...

Oct 12, 2016
y'all would still be rising up in righteous indignation. After all, you ARE the party of Family Values. And, no, I despise Hillary and won't vote for her either. I just hate hypocrites. ...

Jan 08, 2015
Hope this doesn't go the way of Medicaid Expansion, if the state doesn't put up their end, that it doesn't happen. I live in one of those neanderthal states that doesn't support Medicaid Expansion, and if given the option they may not support this either. ...

Apr 07, 2015
President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept at least a year away from being able to build a nuclear weapon for more than a decade due to a framework deal agreed upon last week. However, he conceded Tuesday the buffer period shrinks to almost nothing after 13 or more years. More chilling information at link. ...

Jan 18, 2017
Obama Vacations Cost U.S. Taxpayers Over $85 Million Over 8 Years http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics...35079.htm ...

Mar 03, 2015
By Paul Bedard Published March 03, 2015 Facebook52 Twitter137 Email Print Career diplomats are finding that they can't advance to top State Department posts such as ambassadorships because President Obama has stuffed political appointees into those jobs, the most ever in his second term. "Yes, it's a problem," said Robert Silverman, president of the American Foreign Service Association. "This is an ongoing struggle. We need to maintain the ability for our top people t ...

Nov 07, 2016
"Nothing to look forward to when they get up in the morning." Sounds familiar to me! ...and things were even worse for minorities. Only the rich did well during Obama's years of "hope and chains." Wrong messenger, though. Hillary promised 210,000 jobs for NY when she ran for Senate and didn't deliver. Now she makes the same promise, and some believe her. Hillary doesn't have a clue how to create a job, except for her servants and cronies. ...

Feb 15, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html Try this. As a hint, I suggest going towards the end and starting with the taxation plans first. Learn anything? ...

Apr 13, 2011
Salary of the US President...$400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000. Salary of House/Senate...$174,000. Salary of Speaker of House...$223,500....Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400..........Average US Salary...$33,000 to $77,000. HELLO! I think we found where some cuts should be made! ...

Feb 15, 2011
'Scuse me for any typos or double remarks if any. I am trying to type this as he speaks. He plans to veto earmarks (how can this happen-there is no line item veto), cut LIHEAP program, freeze federal employee wages for 2 years (didn't they already do that?), cut military spending as Gates wanted, will work with everyone to simplify the tax code, but it sounds like he doesn't want to change anything with SS. He wants to increase taxes for those earning over $200K. Then he wants to ...

Apr 21, 2010
By Walter Alarkon - 04/20/10 08:50 AM ET Senate Democrats have written their budget resolution so they can pass jobs legislation using reconciliation, the controversial process used last month to move healthcare reform. The resolution does not specify what specific jobs measures could be covered, and does not explicitly allow for the use of reconciliation rules to pass energy legislation or the extension of George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the ...

Aug 11, 2012
Question for liberals - if Obama is such a wonderful president and manager, can anyone tell me why he has not had a budget in 3-1/2 years? He is such a dismal failure. Having a hard time admitting it, I guess. The Romney/Ryan 2012 ticket is now the ticket of hope. I have more hope today than I've had in a long while. ...

Aug 16, 2012
1) Expiration of the Bush tax cuts at all levels. 2) Removing the cap on the payroll tax. 3) Marginal income rate of 50% on the wealthy.and graduated capital gains taxes. 4) Freezing defense and discretionary spending per the Budget Control Act (part of the fiscal cliff) which caps growth in these categories around 1.5% per year for a decade). 5) Reducing the COLA for Social Security for wealthier retirees. 6) Attacking healthcare cost drivers: obesity, defensive medicin ...

Feb 27, 2013
The sequester cuts are only 2.4% of the whole debt and most won’t take place for another month. A message for the Democrats: STOP THE SPENDING. STOP THE WASTE IN THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING; I.E., The Zombie training, the shrimp on the treadmill study and all the other stupid projects that received millions of dollars. There’s where your 2.4% cuts should be and this is what the Republicans were trying to get stopped last year. Anyone read Tom Coburn's yearly list of th ...

Feb 29, 2012
Here are some of my survival dietary mainstays while drawing unemployment. Maybe this will give you some ideas that you can use or tweak to your liking. It all starts with a ROTISSERIE CHICKEN from the store (or cook your own!). Fry's has just come out with a Colossal rotisserie chicken for only a few dollars more. If you're health conscious, stores like Sunflower Market and Whole Foods sell a hormone- and antibiotic- version that is ...

Feb 19, 2011
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/19/rachel-maddow-exposed-lying-about-wisconsin-having-budget-surplus ...

Dec 21, 2010
woo hoo! ...

Apr 24, 2010
The financial crisis and deep recession have made the long-term fiscal outlook so much worse that many economic experts no longer believe it will be possible, politically or practically, to balance the federal budget. Instead, the best that can be hoped for is to stabilize soaring government debt relative to the size of the economy, these experts say. And even doing that could take a decade or more and require painful tax increases and spending cuts, they add. The budget deficit totaled $1.4 tr ...

May 07, 2010
What does that include and for how many members of the family? Do you take a summer vacation? Winter vacation? Spring break? All of them? ha TIA ...

Jul 10, 2010
14 Reasons Why The U.S. Government Will Never Have A Balanced Budget Ever Again (Editors note: Here are 14 reasons for secession. Remember that a state that secedes from the Union leaves behind every one of these 14 reasons. No more Federal debt, no more Federal income taxes, no more Social Security, no more tyranny.) The United States government will never have another balanced budget again. Yes, you read that correctly. U.S. government finances have now reached a critical “tip ...