Finally, Make the Frenchies Pay their Fair Share!

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course he knew they wouldn't pass it.

Right, it was a political stunt.

Look - if the Democrats won't vote yes on any of the GOP budgets. And, they won't produce their own budget. What else can they do?

The political "stunt" is the Democrats dodging their responsibility to pass a budget, spending like drunken sailors and blaming it on Bush and/or GOP obstructionism.

The travesty here is that the Democrats obstructed ANY budget, and voted 4 GOP budgets down and the President's budget (without policy language), and STILL did not produce an alternative. What possible justification is there for that?

Sheesh....we have a budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite ... ion_passed

Don't. That isn't a budget. It's just a stop-gap measure to "continue appropriations" so that they can continue spending money without a budget. Do you even read these links?

Again, they don't want there to be a budget, because without there being a budget the media won't report on how bloated it is.

Except there is a budget. Huh.

There is not. Passing a continuing appropriations bill is not a budget. It's just a way to keep spending, without a budget.

If they wanted a budget, why wouldn't the Democrats have put the President's budget proposal in toto, with policy language, up for a vote? Why not? You keep ducking that question. I mean -- it's o.k. to support Obama, but the reality is the reality of what they are doing.

Um...because that's not how the budget process works. The "President's budget" isn't a bill, it's a "funding request", which is essentially a list of the President's spending priorities. Remember, the Executive Branch doesn't set the budget, the Legislative Branch does.

Dude, you can't be this dense. Someone in the fucking Senate has to put it up for a fucking vote. Why won't the fucking Democrats put a budget up for a fucking vote? Any budget? The Presidents or some other Democratic proposal. Why?

The Republicans offered four different options. Dems voted them down.

Because they were tea baggin' crazy. Good for them.

LOL -- assuming arguendo that is the case --- WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DEMOCRATS' BUDGET?????

Republicans said "what about the President's budget? Dems voted it down, saying the policy report language wasn't in it.

See, you keep playing this dishonest little game where Sessions just submitted the President's Budget request "without policy report language", intentionally omitting the fact that the "policy report language" was the actual budgetary numbers. IOW, it was a "budget" without any actual budget in it.

No, you're fucking wrong. The budget was voted on. The policy language is explanatory material.

And, you keep ignoring the main fucking point: THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE INTRODUCED WHATEVER THEY WANTED AND THEY CHOOSE NOT TO. If they didn't think the Sessions proposed budget was right, they could have said "oh, wait, here, let me email you the real budget proposal with all the policy language...." They didn't. Why? Why didn't they introduce the "real" budget then?

But, the question becomes: why didn't the Dems offer the budget with the policy report language in it for a vote? Why not?

Because that's not how the appropriations process works. They don't just take the President's Budget Request and vote it up or down. That would kinda make the whole point of the Legislative Branch "controlling the purse strings of the gov't" pointless, wouldn't it?

They are the god damn majority in the Senate! They could introduce anything they want! The budget is a majority vote thing. They could modify the President's budget all they want and introduce something different. They could approve the president's budget.

They didn't.

Are being purposefully obtuse?

I mean -- the Democrats don't want any budget which is why they did not introduce any budget or put one up for a vote, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO the one submitted by the President. Why? What is preventing the Democrats from doing their fucking job?

Then the Democrats need to offer their budget and put it up for a vote.

So what's the federal gov't currently operating under if there's no budget?

Continuing appropriations. It's like when a family doesn't have a budget. The family still pays bills. It's just not working under a budget plan.

Isn't. It's an end-around to avoid having to pass a budget.

LOL! Really? That's your response to the documented fact that we have a federal budget for FY2012? "Nuh uh"? Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable on the elementary school playground where "Is...isn't...is...isn't...is...isn't" is considered actual debate.

We don't have a federal budget for FY 2012. Continuing appropriations are not a budget.

Elementary school playground? You're fucking idiot. That much is patently obvious.

And, the way the federal government is spending money is "absolutely nuts." Not next year. Now.

But leave NASA alone, right?

Not necessarily.

Like I said, there are many more wasteful projects than NASA that people never say much about. It seems that when it comes to NASA, though, people go "whoa! hold on there! we don't have the money for this..." But, billions of dollars of nonsense just keeps being spent.

Let me be clear -- to me -- in times like this, no expenditure is off the table. Military, entitlements, everything is on the table.

See if you can wrap your head around this, though. The constellation program was a monumentally important and beneficial program. I explained previously why that is. Further, if you're going to inject stimulus, a good way to do it is with projects that produce something, and use raw materials, technology and manufacturing, science, engineering, and other highly technical and highly professional people. It actually helps bolster business and industry, increase employment and all sorts of other things. And, we get the benefit of the technological development, and the national inspiration that comes from this kind of achievement.

Overpaying for windows on a Mt. St. Helens viewing center is nothing compared to that, and some of the even more wasteful expenditures outlined all the time at Citizens Against Government Waste, www.cagw.org, are even less beneficial.

So, the point being, if you're going to make cuts, cut the stupidest most pointless projects first. And, that ain't fucking NASA. Well, maybe to YOU NASA should be the first to go. You tell me. If it is, then I can only say that I think you're wrong and I've told you why. If you agree, and you think NASA isn't the first thing justifiably on the chopping block, then what the fuck is up your ass?

[Gerald McGrew]

From the Wiki link that you claim I need to read...

The actual budget for Fiscal Year 2012 was enacted in three appropriations bills in November and December 2011, in accordance with the United States budget process.

So tell me...why would the Democrats have needed to submit a budget for FY2012 when they and the Republicans had already signed three appropriations bills that fund the federal gov't for all of FY2012? What you're arguing is that even though Dem's and Repub's had reached agreement on funding the federal gov't through all of FY2012, the Dem's should have submitted a budget for FY2012?

And you're still dishonestly trying to characterize Sessions' stunt as simply omitting "policy report language", even though you know damn well that the "policy report language" was the actual details of how the money would be spent...IOW, the actual budget.