Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is one of those budget things you talk about? Dirty Harry has said that we are getting along famously without one of those things for nearly 4 years. He likes to just have battles about spending more as it is needed and therefore won't see a budget as long as he can stop them from happening. When the Senate doesn't even read and debate something from the House, no matter how ridiculous it is obvious we will never have a budget with him around. The Constitution says they can amend and compromise but Harry Reid doesn't even allow reading, let alone discussion.
I find it shocking that all during 2000 to 2007, conservatives, the GOP never produced balanced budget legislation or even mentioned balancing the budget during that time, but now, all of a sudden, the conservatives are now conservative when a democrat is in the white house. What's the matter with conservatives anyways? Are they that hypocritical?
Heck, the GOP had total control of the congress for almost 3 years during that period of time I mention, and no balanced budgets were ever talked about. They did talk about raising the debt ceilings though.
Boehner's leadership of the House just might be circling the drain. He can't satisfy the tea party, and he can't even satisfy his New York/New Jersey delegation -- held up funding for Sandy just so he could put the fiscal plan to a vote. See, that's what moronic republitards need to understand: when they spend time blithering over nonsense that should have been settled more than a year ago, they inevitably run into other problems that are unforeseen, such as not looking like completely heartless turds for delaying clean-up aid to their own constituents.
Boehner's leadership of the House just might be circling the drain. He can't satisfy the tea party, and he can't even satisfy his New York/New Jersey delegation -- held up funding for Sandy just so he could put the fiscal plan to a vote. See, that's what moronic republitards need to understand: when they spend time blithering over nonsense that should have been settled more than a year ago, they inevitably run into other problems that are unforeseen, such as not looking like completely heartless turds for delaying clean-up aid to their own constituents.
One can only hope. It will only take 14 Republicans to vote "Present" to end Speaker Boehner's pathetic reign. He should never have been Speaker to begin with. He was even more milquetoast and spineless than Hastert or Frist, and that is saying a lot.
The GOP needs another Gingrich to actually lead the House and get the government back on the fiscal track. As much as Republicans like to point out that when the Democrats controlled the House for four years they never enacted a budget, what they conveniently leave out is that the Republicans have not enacted a budget since 1998 (the year Gingrich resigned). Both Republicans and Democrats alike have been funding the federal government with Continuing Resolutions, Continuing Appropriation, Omnibus bills, and Supplemental bills for the last 15 years. Not a single session of Congress since 1998 has passed the thirteen appropriation bills that constitute the federal budget.
I don't think this is particularly interesting or even worth getting outraged about. Honestly, I swear like a sailor, and while I try to reserve it for the right time and place, I can't say that I'm always perfect about it.
What would have made this story really interesting is if Reid and Boehner had rolled up their sleeves and thrown down.
What else do you say, when you finally realize you have been played like a fiddle at a Friday night hoedown.
In Boehner's case I would expect a "yet again!" type of response. It should be a realization with which Boehner is very familiar. I recall Boehner promising "no compromise" on the 2001 tax extension, just after he first became Speaker in 2010, only to capitulate to the Democrats by giving them another $220 billion to extend unemployment benefits in return for Democrats support.
I put that in the same category as Obama's first State of the Union speech were he says he is against "big government."
Boehner has no business being Speaker. Any Speaker of the House, Republican or Democrat, who is unable or unwilling to pass all thirteen appropriation bills that constitute the federal budget, as required by the US Constitution, should not be allowed to remain Speaker.
Since the House is constitutionally required to originate all appropriation bills, it is solely that body which is to be blamed when there is no budget. If the House passes all thirteen appropriation bills, then they have fulfilled their constitutional obligation, regardless of what the Senate or the President does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he would cry for a year.
