Uh huh

Here's your source. Why don't you provide links? Not providing a link, is sort of like plagiarizing. It creates the impression that you actually wrote the post.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...d-pass-budget/ Originally Posted by joe bloe

talking out your ass again joe?

that the exact site IB's quotes came from

does it matter to you ? was it false information?

why dont you correct either one of the posts from politifact?

better yet, why dont you stop whining when your rhetoric gets shoved back up your ass, where it came from

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.

Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: "That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points."

And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture."



at the end of the day a leading conservative from Heritage, and the AEI gives the bottom line to the floor vote.

embarrassment
symbolism

political teater


in other words, typical republican politics

educated individuals made nothing of the vote or the tally, idiots on the other hand still bring it up to this very day.

Cya idiots. Originally Posted by CJ7

It's fun to watch you squirm and equivocate, CBJ7. Despite your obvious attempts to deflect, you have yet to explain why " . . . during 2009 and 2010, when Dimocrats controlled the Congress, no budget was passed."

Yet, even without a budget, spending did increase under Odumbo.

Nothing false about it!!!

It's fun to watch you squirm and equivocate, CBJ7. Despite your obvious attempts to deflect, you have yet to explain why " . . . during 2009 and 2010, when Dimocrats controlled the Congress, no budget was passed."

Yet, even without a budget, spending did increase under Odumbo.

Nothing false about it!!! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

whats to explain? the president submitted budget proposals, congress didnt pass a budget resolution

days of old exacty like when Gingrich stalled the clinton budget to the point of no return and it bit him in the ass ... spending increased because CONGRESS spent the money .... the country would have been pretty much shut down then idiots like you would have had something to really bitch about..

Not me. Government shut down is good. When they aren't legislating, they aren't screwing things up.

heres the facts about 2009 spending and who spent what, when ...

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

go play outside IB.

Are you saying Obama would have been opposed to the COLA given to SS recipients if he'd had the chance?

there you go again

I didnt say that.

But you said he can't be blamed for the COLA increase, so he must have been against it. It wouldn't have happened if he'd had a say in it, right?

But you said he can't be blamed for the COLA increase, so he must have been against it. It wouldn't have happened if he'd had a say in it, right? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

how the fuck do you come up with this bullshit?

If you could understand what you post, you would understand my response. Never mind. I don't have the time to explain everything to you. Maybe if you tried original thought, instead of cut and paste, you'd see what you're posting.

If you could understand what you post, you would understand my response. Never mind. I don't have the time to explain everything to you. Maybe if you tried original thought, instead of cut and paste, you'd see what you're posting. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I posted the facts ... youre reading what you want to, when you want to, how you want to

as for original thoughts, why dont you keep posting the links to all those original articles youve written ?

Never mind. I don't have the time to explain everything to you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, i think you do.

heres the facts about 2009 spending and who spent what, when ...

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
• Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

go play outside IB. Originally Posted by CJ7

What's your source?

What's your source? Originally Posted by joe bloe

same as the other two

you couldnt figure it out?

anyway, feel free to dispute any of those numbers, Ive already tried

He doesn't understand it anyway, Joe.