Hillary's support is collapsing

[countryroads89_rivals]

He signed the 2009 budget. Nancy and Harry would not sign the budget Bush offered. Obama then gave us a deficit for Fiscal 2009 of $1.4+ trillion. Liberals say that was the last GWB budget year and therefore Bush is tagged with that overly excessive spending, but Bush had nothing to do with that amount of spending. It was controlled by Nancy in House, Harry in Senate, and Obama in Administration as president.

The 2009 budget, which started in October of 2008, has a due date to be signed by the President on the first Monday in February of 2008. Who was President in February 2008? The congress is supposed to act on it prior to October 1 so that a budget is known for the fiscal year.

The 110th congress approved the FY2009 budget on June 5, 2008, which was submitted by Bush.

Keep telling us how the 2009 budget was Obama's. You are either stupid or a liar....or both.

 

[bornaneer]

You folks need to give this crap a break......especially with all the other problems we are having......like the ongoing concession problem at MPS and the turmoil at the Burning Man Festival.

 

[dave]

He has signed 7 of them into law. You do understand the appropriations process, right? From your post, it sure doesn't look like it.

I know politifacts says he didnt sign one until 2014. I dont think you know what you are talking about, as usual.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I know politifacts says he didnt sign one until 2014. I dont think you know what you are talking about, as usual.

And he continues to be unable to provide a single instance of the President trying to compromise.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I know politifacts says he didnt sign one until 2014. I dont think you know what you are talking about, as usual.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! The President signs it into law every year (after it passes the House and Senate). You sound as dumb as neil for trying to put the 2009 budget on Obama. [laughing]

 

[dave]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! The President signs it into law every year (after it passes the House and Senate). You sound as dumb as neil for trying to put the 2009 budget on Obama. [laughing]

You sure francis? You said seven. Counting problem?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/289989-senate-passes-first-budget-in-four-years

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/5/senate-clears-way-final-passage-congress-budget/

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

You sure francis? You said seven. Counting problem?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/289989-senate-passes-first-budget-in-four-years

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/5/senate-clears-way-final-passage-congress-budget/

That article is from 2013. When Congress didn't pass a budget, the federal government operates off a Continuing Resolution. Typically, Continuing Resolutions are intended to be a short-term emergency measure. There have been years where the Continuing Resolution lasts until June (9 months of the fiscal year). Under those scenarios, technically the Congress doesn't pass a budget so to speak. Ultimately, a budget is agreed upon and passed and the President signs it into law. That article is poorly written and apparently from someone that doesn't completely understand the process. The article should have worded it "first time in four years passing a budget on schedule".

1) 2010
2) 2011
3) 2012
4) 2013
5) 2014
6) 2015
7) 2016

As a side note, the article you referenced points out how obstructionist the Congress has been under President Obama (back to that divisive conversation).

 

[dave]

That article is from 2013. When Congress didn't pass a budget, the federal government operates off a Continuing Resolution. Typically, Continuing Resolutions are intended to be a short-term emergency measure. There have been years where the Continuing Resolution lasts until June (9 months of the fiscal year). Under those scenarios, technically the Congress doesn't pass a budget so to speak. Ultimately, a budget is agreed upon and passed and the President signs it into law. That article is poorly written and apparently from someone that doesn't completely understand the process. The article should have worded it "first time in four years passing a budget on schedule".

1) 2010
2) 2011
3) 2012
4) 2013
5) 2014
6) 2015
7) 2016

As a side note, the article you referenced points out how obstructionist the Congress has been under President Obama (back to that divisive conversation).

You said he passed 7. Those were your words. The articles I posted were from 2013 and 2015. You just proved your own claim wrong. Perhaps you should learn not to speak about things that you don't know.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

You said he passed 7. Those were your words. The articles I posted were from 2013 and 2015. You just proved your own claim wrong. Perhaps you should learn not to speak about things that you don't know.

Dude, I am completely familiar with the federal appropriations process. I just counted 7 of them for you. Do you have some sort of learning disability?

 

[dave]

Dude, I am completely familiar with the federal appropriations process. I just counted 7 of them for you. Do you have some sort of learning disability?

In one post you say that congress passes a budget and he signs it. Then when confronted with the fact that congress didn't pass a budget you just push forward and suggest that one was signed anyway. You should probably stop talking because you are making yourself sound like an idiot.....again.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

In one post you say that congress passes a budget and he signs it. Then when confronted with the fact that congress didn't pass a budget you just push forward and suggest that one was signed anyway. You should probably stop talking because you are making yourself sound like an idiot.....again.

A budget has to be signed into law every year. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you?

 

[dave]

A budget has to be signed into law every year. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you?

How can a budget be signed into law if the law was never passed? Perhaps you are just talking out of your ***?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

How can a budget be signed into law if the law was never passed? Perhaps you are just talking out of your ***?

"In addition, the President must sign or veto each of the 12 appropriations bills, giving him additional influence over what the bills look like."

What happens if appropriations bills do not pass by October 1?

If the appropriations bills are not enacted before the fiscal year begins on October 1st, federal funding will lapse, resulting in a government shutdown. To avoid a shutdown, Congress will often pass a continuing resolution, which allows for continued funding, providing additional time for completion of the appropriations process. If Congress has passed some, but not all, of the 12 appropriations bills, a partial government shutdown can occur.

What is a continuing resolution?

A continuing resolution, often referred to as a CR, is a temporary bill that continues funding for all programs based on a fixed formula, usually prior year funding levels. Congress can pass a CR for all or just some of the appropriations bills. CRs can increase or decrease funding and can include “anomalies,” which adjust spending in certain accounts to avoid technical or administrative problems caused by continuing funding at current levels, or for other reasons.

Hmmm....this seems to substantiate everything I said above.
Do you want to continue to look like a complete fool or gracefully end the embarrassment now?

 

[dave]

"In addition, the President must sign or veto each of the 12 appropriations bills, giving him additional influence over what the bills look like."

What happens if appropriations bills do not pass by October 1?

If the appropriations bills are not enacted before the fiscal year begins on October 1st, federal funding will lapse, resulting in a government shutdown. To avoid a shutdown, Congress will often pass a continuing resolution, which allows for continued funding, providing additional time for completion of the appropriations process. If Congress has passed some, but not all, of the 12 appropriations bills, a partial government shutdown can occur.

What is a continuing resolution?

A continuing resolution, often referred to as a CR, is a temporary bill that continues funding for all programs based on a fixed formula, usually prior year funding levels. Congress can pass a CR for all or just some of the appropriations bills. CRs can increase or decrease funding and can include “anomalies,” which adjust spending in certain accounts to avoid technical or administrative problems caused by continuing funding at current levels, or for other reasons.

Hmmm....this seems to substantiate everything I said above.
Do you want to continue to look like a complete fool or gracefully end the embarrassment now?

You claimed that the president got 7 bills passed at least as your "evidence" for all his work with congress. Now you have backtracked completely to a completely different argument. Color me shocked that you were 1) absolutely wrong and then 2) too proud to admit it.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

You claimed that the president got 7 bills passed at least as your "evidence" for all his work with congress. Now you have backtracked completely to a completely different argument. Color me shocked that you were 1) absolutely wrong and then 2) too proud to admit it.

Wrong? It's obvious that everything I have said is correct. 7 appropriations bills (minimum) have been signed into law. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 3 year-old. Your responses are the equivalent of "nuh uh", "you're wrong", "told you so" when you obviously don't have a clue. It's like that design speed versus speed limit concept you had totally backwards and finally admitted after I provided 3 different citations showing you were wrong. It's a good thing you are too dumb to be totally embarrassed at this point.

 

[dave]

Wrong? It's obvious that everything I have said is correct. 7 appropriations bills (minimum) have been signed into law. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 3 year-old. Your responses are the equivalent of "nuh uh", "you're wrong", "told you so" when you obviously don't have a clue. It's like that design speed versus speed limit concept you had totally backwards and finally admitted after I provided 3 different citations showing you were wrong. It's a good thing you are too dumb to be totally embarrassed at this point.

You claimed as evidence that Obama worked with Congress that he "signed 7 budgets" and now your argument is that he "worked" with congress to pass 7 appropriations because by law they had to be signed and most were continuing resolutions.

I understand why you have walked back your original statements because the facts don't back up your stupidity. Obama has never worked well with Congress, He can barely work with his own party in Congress. His actual submitted budgets were rejected almost unanimously.

 

[Popeer]

How many budgets did Obama pass?

None, since presidents don't pass budgets - that's the job of Congress. How many times in the past 30 years has Congress got budgets and spending bills passed before the deadline?

 

[mneilmont]

The 2009 budget, which started in October of 2008, has a due date to be signed by the President on the first Monday in February of 2008. Who was President in February 2008? The congress is supposed to act on it prior to October 1 so that a budget is known for the fiscal year.

The 110th congress approved the FY2009 budget on June 5, 2008, which was submitted by Bush.

Keep telling us how the 2009 budget was Obama's. You are either stupid or a liar....or both.

Little boy, you are again showing your immaturity and stupidity.
The Bush Administration submitted it to Congress in February 2008, right on schedule, but Congress stated it was dead on arrival. Why? It was the first budget to propose spending more than $3 trillion, it underfunded the War on Terror, and its revenue projections ignored the warning signs of recession.

As a result, it wasn't signed until President Obama took office in 2009. At the end of FY 2008 (September 30, 2008), President Bush and Congress signed a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for another six months. As a result, the newly-elected President Obama passed the FY 2009 budget, folding in $253 billion in expenses for the Economic Stimulus Act. For more on how this works, see Budget Process.

A little research hides your ignorance if possible. But you choose to be stupid again

 

[mneilmont]

None, since presidents don't pass budgets - that's the job of Congress. How many times in the past 30 years has Congress got budgets and spending bills passed before the deadline?

I do believe Dave is right again. May require more research.

Remember the 2009 budget signed by Obama on March 11, 2009. It included much more spending than Bush 2008 budget. A few stimulus packages were included in 2009 to jump- start the economy in a recession. Recession officially ended in quarter of June 2009. Since recession was over, spending should have reverted to 2008 budget plus some type COLA adjustment. Economy was not responding, so rather than reduce spending to 2008 level as adjusted, congress elected to proceed via Continuing Resolution at the inflated 2009 budget spending for 2010, 11, and 12.

Citizens started raising hell about funding extra spending to end recession that had ended in summer of 2009. I suspect this is why Obama interjected "sequestration" to budget. Possibly wrong, but he wanted social programs increase/decrease to be same as military increase/decrease that the Repubs wanted as stand alone.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Little boy, you are again showing your immaturity and stupidity.
The Bush Administration submitted it to Congress in February 2008, right on schedule, but Congress stated it was dead on arrival. Why? It was the first budget to propose spending more than $3 trillion, it underfunded the War on Terror, and its revenue projections ignored the warning signs of recession.

As a result, it wasn't signed until President Obama took office in 2009. At the end of FY 2008 (September 30, 2008), President Bush and Congress signed a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for another six months. As a result, the newly-elected President Obama passed the FY 2009 budget, folding in $253 billion in expenses for the Economic Stimulus Act. For more on how this works, see Budget Process.

A little research hides your ignorance if possible. But you choose to be stupid again

Reading comprehension, try it!

The 110th congress approved the FY2009 budget on June 5, 2008, which was submitted by Bush.

Keep telling us how the 2009 budget was Obama's. You are either stupid or a liar....or both.

Here is a quote from the source that YOU selected. "As a result, President Bush added $6 trillion to the U.S. debt -- more than anyone else in history. For comparison, see U.S. Debt by President."

Keep telling us how it's Obama's fault.

Here is a link that shows when the Senate approved the budget, the day after the House approved the budget.
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Senate_Approves_2009_Budget_____31260.html
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Senate_Approves_2009_Budget_____31260.html
Would you like to call me any more names? [laughing]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Reading comprehension, try it!



Here is a quote from the source that YOU selected. "As a result, President Bush added $6 trillion to the U.S. debt -- more than anyone else in history. For comparison, see U.S. Debt by President."

Keep telling us how it's Obama's fault.

Here is a link that shows when the Senate approved the budget, the day after the House approved the budget.
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Senate_Approves_2009_Budget_____31260.html
Would you like to call me any more names? [laughing]

Barry eclipsed that number.

And, still waiting on the list of compromises or across aisle working he has done.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Barry eclipsed that number.

And, still waiting on the list of compromises or across aisle working he has done.

I'll provide a real long list right after they hold Confirmation hearings on the Supreme Court nominee.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I suspect this is why Obama interjected "sequestration" to budget. Possibly wrong, ...

Yes, you are wrong. The sequestration was a Republican brain child.

 

[Popeer]

Yes, you are wrong. The sequestration was a Republican brain child.

Actually it wasn't. Obama proposed sequestration thinking it was a poison pill that neither side would want to swallow, but he underestimated just how hard-headed the GOP could be and it turned out they'd rather chop some of their own favorite programs than give in to anything he preferred.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Actually it wasn't. Obama proposed sequestration thinking it was a poison pill that neither side would want to swallow, but he underestimated just how hard-headed the GOP could be and it turned out they'd rather chop some of their own favorite programs than give in to anything he preferred.

I stand corrected. See, I can admit when I'm wrong. As far as the rest of the thread, nope.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I'll provide a real long list right after they hold Confirmation hearings on the Supreme Court nominee.

Amazing, if only he would have learned to be an effective leader, this SCOTUS appointee would likely have sailed through.

I guess, let me approach this a different way. What motivation has Congress received from POTUS that would entice them to work with POTUS and assist him in executing his visions? You know, the politics piece of the job, working across the aisle kind of stuff. Giving in to some of the things they want, taking a challenge on some of the stuff he wants. He is absolutely no different than the same Congress you are bitching about. Neither is willing to give an inch. A leader knows when to stop being a pig headed *** and make the overtures required to gain buy in.

That's the whole point I have been making on this board about his lack of leadership. You all can blame Congress and that's fine, it fits your narrative that Obama has no responsibility for anything negative. I personally blame both. I can see where Congress is acting in an Obstructionist capacity, however, he is doing the same. Each being more and more divisive to the other. That is not leadership and the Obamanaught's inability to see both are in the wrong is further evidence of what GOP individuals have claimed regarding your blind allegiance to Obama.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Amazing, if only he would have learned to be an effective leader, this SCOTUS appointee would likely have sailed through.

[laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing][laughing] You don't honestly believe that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-host-republican-senators-dinner-requests-meetings/story?id=18666180

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-meets-with-mcconnell-at-white-house-ahead-of-deadline-1417645482

The Republicans couldn't even agree with each other to avoid the government shutdown. Many tried to convince others that it was a terrible idea.

C'mon man.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

This one will leave a mark.

http://www.themodestproposal.com/?p=151

 

[Popeer]

I'm not sure what is more sad, your attempts at trying to salvage your stupidity by attempting to redirect the conversation or your inability to accurately recall a single instance where the President has compromised with the other side. Oh, we get it, it's because Congress, and racists, and oh yea, 7.5 years in and it's still Bush's fault.

OK, I'll play:

1 - Republicans objected to the single-payer system originally proposed in the ACA, so Obama went for the individual mandate which up to that moment had been popular on the right. Yet not a single Republican voted for the ACA anyway.
2 - Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, but went along with the GOP on extending them - in order to avoid another GOP-led government shutdown and default on the debt.
3 - In 2013, Obama wanted hefty tax increases. He actually got about 1/10 of what he wanted, and all the agreement did in fact was delay sequestration until summer.

Kinda hard to compromise when the other side won't listen to anything you suggest.

 

[Mntneer]

OK, I'll play:

1 - Republicans objected to the single-payer system originally proposed in the ACA, so Obama went for the individual mandate which up to that moment had been popular on the right. Yet not a single Republican voted for the ACA anyway.
2 - Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, but went along with the GOP on extending them - in order to avoid another GOP-led government shutdown and default on the debt.
3 - In 2013, Obama wanted hefty tax increases. He actually got about 1/10 of what he wanted, and all the agreement did in fact was delay sequestration until summer.

Kinda hard to compromise when the other side won't listen to anything you suggest.

Compromise on the ACA?

 

[dave]

None, since presidents don't pass budgets - that's the job of Congress. How many times in the past 30 years has Congress got budgets and spending bills passed before the deadline?

Awesome poopeer, congratulations for saying what everyone already knew, now read the thread and see why I asked the question. Derp.

 

[mneilmont]

The 2009 budget, which started in October of 2008, has a due date to be signed by the President on the first Monday in February of 2008. Who was President in February 2008? The congress is supposed to act on it prior to October 1 so that a budget is known for the fiscal year.

The 110th congress approved the FY2009 budget on June 5, 2008, which was submitted by Bush.

Keep telling us how the 2009 budget was Obama's. You are either stupid or a liar....or both.

I have given it to you in short passages. If your capacity to retain is that diminished, I don't think I can help you. I look it up and give to you that Obama signed final 2009 budget into law on March 11, 2009. And yes, the president signs off on the bill. If he doesn't sign it is nothing but a spending resolution. Without that signature, may cause shut down. This is where Repubs have shown no balls and sign CRs, which is not a legal bil, but provides continuation of spending at last years budget level. People back home vote them into office to control spending. Instead of control, they have accepted what Obama offeres. Two or three refuse to sign and the news media raises hell that Repubs attempting to shut gov. down. Actually, the pres can accept what congress offers. Then he would catch hell the repub congress catches when they craw fish and back up from Obama demands. Put the monkey on his back and see if he will shut the gov down in the eyes of the media.

 

[mneilmont]

Yes, you are wrong. The sequestration was a Republican brain child.

Another Obama offering that the ball-less repubs backed off and let Obama have his way.
A 2012 book written by legendary newspaperman Bob Woodward of The Washington Post claimed the idea of sequestration originated with the Obama White House, but that congressional Republicans signed on to the idea eventually.

Woodward, writing in the newspaper in 2013, said: "... the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government."

"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved," Woodward wrote.

No matter. The week before the sequestration cuts were set to begin in 2013, public opinion polls showed nearly half of Americans were blaming congressional Republicans for failing to reach a deal on deficit reduction. Fewer than a third, 31 percent, were blaming Obama.


Show Full Article
Related
Some never learn. Cuntryboy sets the standards. Does not have capacity to research and think it out. Just go to Dem media and repeat their lies. This boy even believes Clinton tales. Pathetic.

 

[mneilmont]

Awesome poopeer, congratulations for saying what everyone already knew, now read the thread and see why I asked the question. Derp.

Good work, my good friend.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

OK, I'll play:

1 - Republicans objected to the single-payer system originally proposed in the ACA, so Obama went for the individual mandate which up to that moment had been popular on the right. Yet not a single Republican voted for the ACA anyway.
2 - Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, but went along with the GOP on extending them - in order to avoid another GOP-led government shutdown and default on the debt.
3 - In 2013, Obama wanted hefty tax increases. He actually got about 1/10 of what he wanted, and all the agreement did in fact was delay sequestration until summer.

Kinda hard to compromise when the other side won't listen to anything you suggest.

Well since damn near every objection to the ACA has been realized with the exception of the death panels, there was valid reason to not support it under any circumstance. You trying to claim the ACA in any capacity is mind boggling.

He did number 2 to save number 1.

He didn't have support in his own party for #3.

Come on man, damn.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

And he continues to be unable to provide a single instance of the President trying to compromise.

Obama resisted calls for Congressional Democrats to pursue criminal investigations of the Bush Administration.
Obama reappointed Robert Gates (R) as Secretary of Defense.
Appointed Ray LaHood (R), Secretary of Transportation.
Appointed Judd Gregg (R), Commerce Secretary.
No other President in history has ever appointed three cabinet members from a different party. NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.
Obama appointed a “judges judge”, Sonia Sotomayor, as his first appointment to the Supreme Court, a judge that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called “generally in the mainstream….not an activist“.
Obama endorsed charter schools.
"Obama invited four Republican senators to the White House to discuss health care. Three…are seen by colleagues as highly unlikely to vote for an Obama-backed plan. The fourth…is a moderate Republican viewed as a possible supporter, even though she has demanded changes in the Democratic-drafted bills.”
“The president has invited members of Congress from both parties for a meeting at the White House next Tuesday, the first of the bipartisan brainstorming sessions that Mr. Obama proposed during the State of the Union address. Republicans will also be invited to the White House this weekend to watch the Super Bowl, as well as to Camp David and other venues for social visits.”
“Liberals are…..irritated because he appears to be set on following the same strategy for the second half of his term that failed in the first half: reaching out to Republicans, getting shot down by a unified GOP, and getting no credit for trying. Outgoing Ohio governor Ted Strickland put it this way….: “…The president said he should have been willing to work with the GOP earlier. What? After all of this you don’t realize these people want to destroy you and your agenda? How many times do you have to be, you know, slapped in the face?”
"The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.”
President Obama appointed a member from each of the main political parties to fill out the Federal Communications Commission, as the regulatory body looks to manage a full agenda in the coming months.”

Stop regurgitating the Faux News rhetoric. Think for yourself.

Game, set and match!

 

[Popeer]

Awesome poopeer, congratulations for saying what everyone already knew, now read the thread and see why I asked the question. Derp.

Derp? You're the one who asked how many budgets Obama has passed. He's proposed a budget every year he's been in office, which is his role in the process. It's like asking how many Executive Orders Paul Ryan has issued. [eyeroll]

 

[dave]

Derp? You're the one who asked how many budgets Obama has passed. He's proposed a budget every year he's been in office, which is his role in the process. It's like asking how many Executive Orders Paul Ryan has issued. [eyeroll]

No fkin **** sherlock? READ THE THREAD OR STFU.