The Real Do-Nothing Congress: 1000 Days Without a Budget

[Jack Springer]

Congress, specifically a democratic party controlled Congress, has refused to pass a budget for 1000 days.

This sad anniversary occurs on the day that Barrack Obama gives his, what will hopefully be, last SOTU speech.

I doubt that he will mention it or that it will be mentioned in any of the MSM ... not even FNC. Congress is required by law to pass a budget.

One thing both democrats and republicans should agree on is that there is a need for a responsible annual budget for our country. We need the guidance and structure.

The House did pass a budget last year but the Senate controlled by the democrats refused a vote.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

 

[CowboyBob]

Who's been controlling congress for the past 2 years Springer? Let's do the math:

365 x 2 = 730 days

That's 730 days the do-nothing republican controlled tea bagging right wing extremists have failed. No wonder their approval rating is at 11%. Wonder how it's even that high.

Your thread is an EPIC FAIL.

 

[JayHawk]

Well Bob if the House passed a budget and that is your reference for Republican control then it hardly means they failed.

That said I don't think Congress has passed a budget on time since I have been alive. The one main control the legislature has on this country is the purse strings. I don't see it changing anytime soon either because when it is a completely controlled congress by one party then typically the President will veto the budget.

 

[Jack Springer]

Who's been controlling congress for the past 2 years Springer? Let's do the math:

365 x 2 = 730 days

That's 730 days the do-nothing republican controlled tea bagging right wing extremists have failed. No wonder their approval rating is at 11%. Wonder how it's even that high.

Your thread is an EPIC FAIL.

Sit down and relax, Bob. Maybe take a couple of aspirin.

The House has only been in republican hands since early last year -- not 730 days.

... you might want to get yourself one of those new-fangled things called a calculator so you can do math a little more accurate.

Bottom line: democrats in the House and Senate have been an epic fail. They need to pass a budget.

 

[palemale]

This sad anniversary occurs on the day that Barrack Obama gives his, what will hopefully be, last SOTU speech.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

You said in another thread that you couldn't see voting for Romney. I can't cite the thread because it has been deleted in its entirety. So, who do you want to be the next President?

 

[altlover85]

I think both parties need to come together and learn to work together. To place the blame solely on the Democrats or solely on the Republicans seems indicative of the partisan issues that we have as a country.

 

[MystikWizard]

I think both parties need to come together and learn to work together. To place the blame solely on the Democrats or solely on the Republicans seems indicative of the partisan issues that we have as a country.

LOL.

You are funny. When pigs fly.

 

[Jack Springer]

You said in another thread that you couldn't see voting for Romney. I can't cite the thread because it has been deleted in its entirety. So, who do you want to be the next President?

I'm not a fan of Romney. Right now I would support Gingrich.

It's a long time till the election.

One thing I do know, I would never vote for a President just because of his skin color.

 

[andysayshi]

One thing I do know, I would never vote for a President just because of his skin color.

One thing is obvious - you would happily bring skin colour into a debate that has nothing to do with skin colour.

Lucky this is not an On-Topic thread - you would be guilty of hijacking your own thread!

 

[Jack Springer]

One thing is obvious - you would happily bring skin colour into a debate that has nothing to do with skin colour.

Lucky this is not an On-Topic thread - you would be guilty of hijacking your own thread!

I should have been more specific. I have voted for people of color in the past and would expect to do so in the future if they are the best candidate for an office.

Solely picking a candidate because of the color of their skin is not right in my opinion and that was the point I was trying to make -- however, many did in 2008. In retrospect I should have said nothing about race.

 

[CowboyBob]

I should have been more specific. I have voted for people of color in the past and would expect to do so in the future if they are the best candidate for an office.

Solely picking a candidate because of the color of their skin is not right in my opinion and that was the point I was trying to make -- however, many did in 2008. In retrospect I should have said nothing about race.

Well isn't that noble of you.

 

[frankfrank]

Based on this premise

but the Senate controlled by the democrats refused a vote.

this entire thread is bogus.

With the Republicans making sure they filibuster absolutely everything they can possibly get away with, the Democrats were NEVER in control of the Senate. When they briefly had the "veto-proof majority" that wasn't even true, because Kennedy (D-Mass.) was so incapacitated that he was rarely on the floor, so he was a Senator-in-name-only. The Republicans have more than a large enough minority to filibuster at will, and when their main and ONLY objective is to make Obama fail - America be damned!! (It's OK if the country collapses, as long as a Republican President is elected in November)

I would almost rather kill myself than vote for any Republican at this point. The DEMOCRATS aren't any good, either, but at least they throw scraps at us once in a while.

The Republicans LOVE to boast this 1,000-day thing, which was entirely caused by them. The Democrats have been ready, all along, to vote on a budget.

 

[CowboyBob]

this entire thread is bogus.

This says it all.

It's Springer's lame attempt to stir up a shitstorm against Democrats.

 

[chrisrobin]

This says it all.

It's Springer's lame attempt to stir up a shitstorm against Democrats.

This thread should be moved to the Fetish forum.

 

[palemale]

I should have been more specific. I have voted for people of color in the past and would expect to do so in the future if they are the best candidate for an office.

Solely picking a candidate because of the color of their skin is not right in my opinion and that was the point I was trying to make -- however, many did in 2008. In retrospect I should have said nothing about race.

You are suggesting that most people who voted for Obama did so only because of his skin color. I voted for Obama, but wouldn't vote for anyone just because of their skin color. For example, I would never vote for John Boehner, and he is a person of color. I haven't figured out what color yet, but he's a person of color. Maybe he's ocher.

 

[palemale]

I'm not a fan of Romney. Right now I would support Gingrich.

I was rooting for Gingrich because I thought he was more unelectable than Romney. However, Romney's approval ratings are now only marginally better than Gingrich's. What state do you live in? Will you get to vote in the primary?

Actually, if anyone is in Florida now, I'd be interested in hearing what's going on in the campaign, what your neighbors think, etc. I never feel like I get a good sense from the news media how the campaign is actually playing out on the street. Things seemed close in South Carolina up to election day, but that portrayal was obviously way off.

 

[chrisrobin]

You are suggesting that most people who voted for Obama did so only because of his skin color. I voted for Obama, but wouldn't vote for anyone just because of their skin color. For example, I would never vote for John Boehner, and he is a person of color. I haven't figured out what color yet, but he's a person of color. Maybe he's ocher.

For example, I would never vote for John Boehner, and he is a person of color.

How about khaki? I think khaki originated in Kenya.

 

[Jack Springer]

Based on this premise



this entire thread is bogus.

With the Republicans making sure they filibuster absolutely everything they can possibly get away with, the Democrats were NEVER in control of the Senate. When they briefly had the "veto-proof majority" that wasn't even true, because Kennedy (D-Mass.) was so incapacitated that he was rarely on the floor, so he was a Senator-in-name-only. The Republicans have more than a large enough minority to filibuster at will, and when their main and ONLY objective is to make Obama fail - America be damned!! (It's OK if the country collapses, as long as a Republican President is elected in November)

I would almost rather kill myself than vote for any Republican at this point. The DEMOCRATS aren't any good, either, but at least they throw scraps at us once in a while.

The Republicans LOVE to boast this 1,000-day thing, which was entirely caused by them. The Democrats have been ready, all along, to vote on a budget.

A budget vote in the Senate only requires a simple majority.