$3.5 Trillion Spending Plan Approved by Congress with zero Republican support - Polidicks

Scratch another thing off of Obama's list of (broken) promises: We're seeing no bipartisanship as Republicans flatly oppose Obama's spending policies in both the House and Senate. Oh wait, we can also safely scratch out his promise of cutting our deficit by anything at this point. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203473.html[/url] [quote] Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama's ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities. Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama's spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama's presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming. The measures now move to a conference committee where negotiators must resolve differences between the two chambers, a prelude to the more difficult choices that will be required to implement Obama's initiatives. While Democrats back the president's vision for transforming huge sectors of the economy, they remain fiercely divided over the details. There is no agreement, for example, on how to pay for an overhaul of the health-care system expected to add more than $1 trillion to the budget over the next decade, nor is there consensus on how to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the government stands to collect by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions and forcing industry to buy permits to pollute. Those issues will be decided in committees where lawmakers have begun the torturous work on the specifics of Obama's broad plans. "Democrats in the House and, I think, the Senate are shoulder to shoulder with the president in trying to make the big decisions we need to make in this country," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). But, he said, "Hammering out the details will require everyone to roll up their sleeves." Republicans blasted the Democratic budget as a reckless manifesto that would greatly expand the size of government and double the national debt within five years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he feared the consequences of a budget that "calls for a dramatic and potentially irreversible shift of our nation to the left in the areas of health care, education and private enterprise." Democrats rallied behind the president, however, arguing that their budget would rebuild an economy ruined by eight years of Republican leadership. In the House, fiscal conservatives generally fell in line behind the plan, even though it would generate a deficit of more than $1.2 trillion next year and produce large annual deficits well into the future. The progressive caucus offered an alternative budget plan primarily to voice opposition to the war in Iraq, though many of its members also voted for the revised Obama budget plan. The House voted 233 to 196 to support the Democratic budget proposal, with just 20 Democrats voting with Republicans in opposition. The Senate approved its blueprint 55 to 43, with all but two Democrats voting yes. The biggest dispute between the two chambers is whether to use a powerful procedural shortcut that could allow Obama's health, education and energy initiatives to pass the Senate with 51 votes rather than the usual 60, eliminating the need to win over any Republicans. The House yesterday voted to include the procedure, known as reconciliation, in its budget plan to speed health care and education legislation. But Senate Republicans -- and some Senate Democrats -- argue that the maneuver would make bipartisan cooperation all but impossible on some of the most significant measures to come before the Senate in years. The Senate, meanwhile, has roundly rejected reconciliation for Obama's cap-and-trade proposal, adopting an amendment to ban the maneuver by a vote of 67 to 31. The House budget does not include cap-and-trade in its reconciliation provisions. But neither fact has deterred cap-and-trade advocates, and administration officials support leaving the door open in the budget blueprint when it emerges from conference committee for a final vote this month. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called cap-and-trade "the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time," and said it would be difficult to pass without reconciliation because Democrats would be forced to accommodate a handful of Republicans as they did in the debate over the president's stimulus package. Although winning use of the maneuver is unlikely, Cardin said, "a lot of us don't want to give up without a fight." Other differences between the two chambers are comparatively minor. Both the House and Senate budget plans would authorize about $3.5 trillion in spending next year, about $100 billion less than Obama requested. Much of that reduction would come from lawmakers' decision not to budget another $250 billion for the Treasury's $700 billion bailout of the nation's financial system. That move would not prevent Obama from requesting the funds, however. Both chambers also trimmed Obama's request for government agencies with the Senate cutting $15 billion and the House cutting about $7 billion. But both budget plans would fully fund Obama's request for defense spending and authorize the administration to spend $130 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. Both chambers have adopted Obama's plans to extend tax cuts for the middle class beyond their 2010 expiration date and to allow cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year to expire. But both chambers scaled back Obama's plan to protect millions of families from the alternative minimum tax and dropped his proposal to make permanent his signature $800 tax credit for working families. [/quote]

Where is this list of broken promises exactly? I'm interested, would you transcribe it for us?

Huh, that's pretty weak. I mean, that's kind of showing that everyone in the party thinks alike. I mean, that's the overall role of a party, but damn, thats pretty lame.

[QUOTE=Lankist;14455816]Where is this list of broken promises exactly? I'm interested, would you transcribe it for us?[/QUOTE] YeahI'd like to see it to. From what I always hear it must be really big. [URL=http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/#f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that we are in [B]$11,128,783,898,746.40 of debt[/B] as of Today.

The Republicans are never going to agree with the Democrats on anything, that's just how it is. The Democrats have to pass everything without a Republican vote or it's not going to pass. Hardly unexpected. Otherwise, I'm thrilled about reform for healthcare and education. If this is what it takes to fix some of the shit that's wrong with the country, so be it. It certainly beats the Republican's "alternative" which consisted entirely of just doing nothing (except for actively taking about what the Democrats have accomplished). The Republicans had a chance to weigh in with intelligent debate, but they decided to hawk the same tired old rhetoric and bullshit and everyone ignored them as such.

[QUOTE=Poltergeist;14455842]YeahI'd like to see it to. From what I always hear it must be really big. [URL=http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/#f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] thats.sexy.

[QUOTE=Poltergeist;14455842]YeahI'd like to see it to. From what I always hear it must be really big. [URL=http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/#f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/f7a51c1507670e2b28101ba14a393eea.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] Donald's face always gets me in that picture.

Those Republicans are stupid. They automatically assume left = the work of Satan.

Hahahaha.

[QUOTE=Lankist;14455816]Where is this list of broken promises exactly? I'm interested, would you transcribe it for us?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/[/url] I think.

Why the [b]fuck[/b] do we keep spending money we don't have? This is getting dumb.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;14456182][url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/[/url] I think.[/QUOTE] That's amazing. 21 promises kept to 3 promises broken. OMFGKLFJLFASFJKLSFJKL;SDAF

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;14456207]Why the [b]fuck[/b] do we keep spending money we don't have? This is getting dumb.[/QUOTE] Gotta spend money to make money.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;14456182][url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/[/url] I think.[/QUOTE] I see three broken promises so far [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/[/url] no torrent needed

[QUOTE=Omali;14456219]That's amazing. 21 promises kept to 3 promises broken. OMFGKLFJLFASFJKLSFJKL;SDAF[/QUOTE] He's still got over 400 more to go though

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;14456182][url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/[/url] I think.[/QUOTE] Wow, I thought It would be many more promises broken than that.

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;14456207]Why the [b]fuck[/b] do we keep spending money we don't have? This is getting dumb.[/QUOTE] When has the US spent money it owned?

[QUOTE=thisispain;14456446]When has the US spent money it owned?[/QUOTE] Not since Clinton.

[IMG]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k189/ryenoru_v2/fonejacker.jpg[/IMG] Monies?

[QUOTE=SnakeHead;14456207]Why the [b]fuck[/b] do we keep spending money we don't have? This is getting dumb.[/QUOTE] It's the American way.

[QUOTE=D-Fens;14455959]The Republicans are never going to agree with the Democrats on anything, that's just how it is. The Democrats have to pass everything without a Republican vote or it's not going to pass. Hardly unexpected. Otherwise, I'm thrilled about reform for healthcare and education. If this is what it takes to fix some of the shit that's wrong with the country, so be it. It certainly beats the Republican's "alternative" which consisted entirely of just doing nothing (except for actively taking about what the Democrats have accomplished). The Republicans had a chance to weigh in with intelligent debate, but they decided to hawk the same tired old rhetoric and bullshit and everyone ignored them as such.[/QUOTE] You DO realize that Congress doesn't change because of Presidential elections, right? Not only that, but the President couldn't have even introduced this to Congress. This EXACT same thing could've happened under Bush, especially if they managed to convince enough to get around a possible veto. So yea. Nice to meet your parents, by the way.

[QUOTE=nolancamp2;14456160]Those Republicans are stupid. They automatically assume left = the work of Satan.[/QUOTE] Or perhaps they did their job and looked at the proposal, before discarding it as being outright insane, while the democrat fanboys just followed their shepherd like a bunch of sheep.

Facepunch: INTERNET POLITICAL ANALYSTS Maybe you should wait until you actually know something about the thing you're complaining about to whine about it on an internet forum, instead of following others pretentious opinions about how they think government works.

HOW DARE OBAMA ATTEMPT TO BOOST SPENDING BY GIVING MONEY TO THE BANKS AND OTHER INDUSTRIES, WHY THIS CLEARLY PROVES HE'S A MUSLIM WHO WAS SENT BY OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL QUAEDA TO BREAK THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!1111111 How the fuck do you idiots think anyone's going to get out of this recession hm? Do you think that someone's just going to wave a magic wand and ding everythings fixed? If no one spends then a bad situation gets worse fast as with pretty much every recession.

[QUOTE=markg06;14461817]How the fuck do you idiots think anyone's going to get out of this recession hm? Do you think that someone's just going to wave a magic wand and ding everythings fixed? If no one spends then a bad situation gets worse fast as with pretty much every recession.[/QUOTE] Democrats thought F.D.R. didn't spend enough in the Great Depression, and they think that Obama isn't nearly spending enough. The jury is still out on whether F.D.R. helped prolong the depression or not. It is known (or should be) that the U.S. economy really broke out of the depression due to World War II. The philosophy the Democrats are using is that you gotta spend your way out of a recession. Republicans have been either arguing completely against this or are arguing that what you spend on is a hell of a lot more important than reckless spending. Everyone's also been acting like this is a complete surprise, but when you read back on history even back to the Fair Housing Act from Jimmy Carter (which did nothing until it gained a huge boost by Bill Clinton,) this recession shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. We were long overdue for one anyways.

[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;14461679]Or perhaps they did their job and looked at the proposal, before discarding it as being outright insane, while the democrat fanboys just followed their shepherd like a bunch of sheep.[/QUOTE] Yeah Right, Most of those idiots didn't even read the Patriot Act and signed that shit so fast, and it has such loose language such as Describing what it does, but includes 'And other means' In what it does... They probably said Oh that's a high amount of money, no thanks... even the 800Bil that Obama proposed is 800bil over 10 years... we spend almost that much PER year on our military

[QUOTE=TheTalon;14462190]Yeah Right, Most of those idiots didn't even read the Patriot Act and signed that shit so fast, and it has such loose language such as Describing what it does, but includes 'And other means' In what it does... They probably said Oh that's a high amount of money, no thanks... even the 800Bil that Obama proposed is 800bil over 10 years... we spend almost that much PER year on our military[/QUOTE] You'd be so surprised how hard it is to find exact numbers anywhere, everyone is so keen on using only percentages instead of real numbers. [url=http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts/2007/FS_Debt%20Limit092707.pdf]The total spending on the Iraq war was only $567 billion[/url] so I'm curious as to what planet your numbers just landed from. Obama in 3 months now has somewhere around $6.5 trillion in debt. If Obama can't cut this massive debt by at least half by the end of the year, the Republicans will have some handy firepower against him in the next election.

[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;14462345]You'd be so surprised how hard it is to find exact numbers anywhere, everyone is so keen on using only percentages instead of real numbers. [url=http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts/2007/FS_Debt%20Limit092707.pdf]The total spending on the Iraq war was only $567 billion[/url] so I'm curious as to what planet your numbers just landed from. Obama in 3 months now has somewhere around $6.5 trillion in debt. If Obama can't cut this massive debt by at least half by the end of the year, the Republicans will have some handy firepower against him in the next election.[/QUOTE] Please, the Republican party is in shambles.

[QUOTE=D-Fens;14456455]Not since Clinton.[/QUOTE] More surplus myths plox.