Finally, Make the Frenchies Pay their Fair Share!

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought the French didn't tip much, because the tip is already added into the bill and maybe they don't know how the tipping works in non-French restaurants. Time for the French to sue for discrimination.

Is it illegal to discriminate against the French?

It's just making them pay their fair share.

[Svartalf]

When I'm sure Romney pays more % of his earnings than his secretaries in taxes, maybe we talk?

[Coito ergo sum]

When I'm sure Romney pays more % of his earnings than his secretaries in taxes, maybe we talk?

The Democrats had control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time, one party rule, for 2 years. Any reason they didn't adjust this supposed inequity while they had the chance?

[Svartalf]

GOP systematic obstruction? Has Obie actually managed to pass a budget bill in his term?

[Coito ergo sum]

GOP systematic obstruction? Has Obie actually managed to pass a budget bill in his term?

No, because the Democrats in Congress have unanimously voted AGAINST Obama's proposed budgets. This year, every Democrat voted against Obama's proposed budget. Every Democrat.

The Republican led House of Representatives did pass a budget. The Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't pass it, though.

So, whose obstruction is that?

[Svartalf]

I get your point, but find it hard the party would systematically obstruct its own president, and not kindly ask him to step down and be replaced by a better Messiah.

[Coito ergo sum]

I get your point, but find it hard the party would systematically obstruct its own president, and not kindly ask him to step down and be replaced by a better Messiah.

I can't tell you why, but I can tell you that the Democrats unanimously voted no to Obama's own budget.

I can speculate. If there is no budget passed, nobody can blame them for passing a bloated budget. So far, it has worked.

[Seth]

Easy way around the anti-discrimination law, just add 18 percent to EVERYONE'S bill, with a notation that if you tip more than that, the 18 percent will be refunded as a discount.

[Gerald McGrew]

This year, every Democrat voted against Obama's proposed budget. Every Democrat.

You're not telling the whole story.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... 99-0-vote/

The Republican led House of Representatives did pass a budget. The Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't pass it, though.

Because it was fucking crazy.

[Coito ergo sum]

This year, every Democrat voted against Obama's proposed budget. Every Democrat.

You're not telling the whole story.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... 99-0-vote/

I'm telling the relevant part. Which is that you can't call it Republican obstructionism if every, single Democrat voted against the budget. Every one. And, the Republicans voted against it because they had a budget plan which had been passed in the House. But, the Senate Democrats would not vote on it. And, the Senate Democrats would not propose an alternative.

That's the whole story. And, it's one of Democrats opting not to pass any budget. The Senate Democrats wouldn't propose one. They wouldn't pass the President's and they wouldn't vote on the Republicans' budget either.

How else do you interpret that?

The Republican led House of Representatives did pass a budget. The Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't pass it, though.

Because it was fucking crazy.

Nonsense.

But, of course, they were free to (a) pass the President's budget, which was not filibustered; or (b) propose an alternative. The Democrats opted for (c) "don't bother with a budget, and blame it on Republicans."

[Gerald McGrew]

I'm telling the relevant part.

No, the relevant part is that the "Obama budget" that the Senate voted against was, as Obama put it, "Not my budget". Rather, Senate Republicans used a procedural move to force a vote on Session's (R-SC) version of the Obama budget proposal. IOW, the GOP presented a rather empty straw man of the President's budget proposal, forced a vote on it, and tried to crow when it was naturally rejected.

That's the "relevant part".

Which is that you can't call it Republican obstructionism if every, single Democrat voted against the budget. Every one

No, you call it what it was, a political stunt.

And, the Republicans voted against it because they had a budget plan which had been passed in the House. But, the Senate Democrats would not vote on it.

Because it's fucking crazy.

And, the Senate Democrats would not propose an alternative.

I fully agree that's a serious problem.

That's the whole story. And, it's one of Democrats opting not to pass any budget. The Senate Democrats wouldn't propose one. They wouldn't pass the President's and they wouldn't vote on the Republicans' budget either.

How else do you interpret that?

See above. I hope it's merely that you weren't aware of the details, rather than intentionally omitting them.

Nonsense.

Really? Have you done the math on the Ryan budget? Pretty simple really...discretionary spending is virtually eliminated while billionaires are given even larger tax cuts. That's fucking crazy.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm telling the relevant part.

No, the relevant part is that the "Obama budget" that the Senate voted against was, as Obama put it, "Not my budget". Rather, Senate Republicans used a procedural move to force a vote on Session's (R-SC) version of the Obama budget proposal. IOW, the GOP presented a rather empty straw man of the President's budget proposal, forced a vote on it, and tried to crow when it was naturally rejected.

That's the "relevant part".

No. The Democrats are the majority in the Senate. The only thing different in the budget that was voted down was that it did not include policy report language. Substantively, it was the same language. It was not a "rather empty straw man of the President's budget proposal." It was the same budget, just without policy report language.

The Democrats voted down four Republican proposals other than the President's proposal, and voted all of them down.

The Democrats wouldn't bring the President's budget up for a vote -- that's why the Republicans brought the President's proposal up for a vote.

As the majority in the Senate, the Democrats could call for a vote on any budget they want. Budgets can't be filibustered. They only need a simple majority to pass.

The relevant part is that the Democrats in the Senate could have voted on any budget they wanted, but they did not. Every budget the Republicans proposed was voted down with no alternative offered by the Democrats.

That's the relevant part.

Which is that you can't call it Republican obstructionism if every, single Democrat voted against the budget. Every one

No, you call it what it was, a political stunt.

...yes... a stunt by the Democrats. THEY REFUSED TO VOTE ON A BUDGET! The Republicans offered 4 budget plans. All got no votes from the Dems. The Republicans said "o.k., let's offer the President's budget," and the Dems said no again. And, they offered no budget of their own.

And, the Republicans voted against it because they had a budget plan which had been passed in the House. But, the Senate Democrats would not vote on it.

Because it's fucking crazy.

And, the Senate Democrats would not propose an alternative.

I fully agree that's a serious problem.

It's a travesty. It's a "political stunt."

That's the whole story. And, it's one of Democrats opting not to pass any budget. The Senate Democrats wouldn't propose one. They wouldn't pass the President's and they wouldn't vote on the Republicans' budget either.

How else do you interpret that?

See above. I hope it's merely that you weren't aware of the details, rather than intentionally omitting them.

Look -- you're just flat wrong that the President's budget was materially altered.

The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama’s budget because it did not include policy report language.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... 99-0-vote/

The fact that report language wasn't included (which are explanatory passages) doesn't change the budget itself.

Also, the Democrats could have, anytime they wanted, put in the report language and voted on it.

Nonsense.

Really? Have you done the math on the Ryan budget? Pretty simple really...discretionary spending is virtually eliminated while billionaires are given even larger tax cuts. That's fucking crazy.

It's also bullshit.

And, the answer should be, if they don't like the Ryan budget, is to pass another budget instead of ducking, weaving and hiding from the issues. They're purposefully going without a budget. They could pass one, and then set up a conference committee to reconcile the House Budget and the Senate Budget, but they don't fucking want to do that, because that would actually put their spending under scrutiny.

[Gerald McGrew]

The only thing different in the budget that was voted down was that it did not include policy report language. Substantively, it was the same language. It was not a "rather empty straw man of the President's budget proposal." It was the same budget, just without policy report language.

The "policy report language" was specifics on how spending targets would be reached and how specific funds would be allocated. You know....the actual "budget" part of the thing.

Sessions offered a basic outline of the President's budget, empty of any specifics. No way anyone would vote for such an absurdity, and the GOP knew it. Why else do you think a Republican from SC would present Obama's budget in the first place?

The Democrats voted down four Republican proposals other than the President's proposal, and voted all of them down.

The Democrats wouldn't bring the President's budget up for a vote -- that's why the Republicans brought the President's proposal up for a vote.

The Senate passed the Budget Control Act, which Democrats say effectively functions as a budget resolution by setting limits on discretionary spending (and actually carries more weight as it is an actual law). http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3635

Look -- you're just flat wrong that the President's budget was materially altered.

Except I didn't say that. I said the Sessions (R-SC) bill was an empty straw man of Obama's budget. It was. Or are you suggesting that Sessions actually favored the Obama budget proposal?

It's also bullshit.

No, the Ryan budget is absolutely nuts. Its specifics poll horribly, but pollsters complain that they have trouble convincing people that it was an actual proposal.

And, the answer should be, if they don't like the Ryan budget, is to pass another budget instead of ducking, weaving and hiding from the issues. They're purposefully going without a budget.

We have a budget. Because the BCA has the force of law, the FY2012 federal budget had to conform to it (as does the 2013 one). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite ... ral_budget

[Coito ergo sum]

The only thing different in the budget that was voted down was that it did not include policy report language. Substantively, it was the same language. It was not a "rather empty straw man of the President's budget proposal." It was the same budget, just without policy report language.

The "policy report language" was specifics on how spending targets would be reached and how specific funds would be allocated. You know....the actual "budget" part of the thing.

Sessions offered a basic outline of the President's budget, empty of any specifics. No way anyone would vote for such an absurdity, and the GOP knew it. Why else do you think a Republican from SC would present Obama's budget in the first place?

Of course he knew they wouldn't pass it. If they were going to pass it, the Democrats would have put it up for a vote!

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?

The Democrats voted down four Republican proposals other than the President's proposal, and voted all of them down.

The Democrats wouldn't bring the President's budget up for a vote -- that's why the Republicans brought the President's proposal up for a vote.

The Senate passed the Budget Control Act, which Democrats say effectively functions as a budget resolution by setting limits on discretionary spending (and actually carries more weight as it is an actual law). http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3635

Nice tactic. 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. And, the Democrats just pretend that the Republicans are the ones blocking a budget from passing, when that is just patently not true.

Look -- you're just flat wrong that the President's budget was materially altered.

Except I didn't say that. I said the Sessions (R-SC) bill was an empty straw man of Obama's budget. It was. Or are you suggesting that Sessions actually favored the Obama budget proposal?

No, I'm saying he knew the Democrats don't want a budget to be passed AT ALL, and called their bluff. 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.

The Republicans offered four different options. Dems voted them down. Republicans said "what about the President's budget? Dems voted it down, saying the policy report language wasn't in it. But, the question becomes: why didn't the Dems offer the budget with the policy report language in it for a vote? Why not?

It's also bullshit.

No, the Ryan budget is absolutely nuts. Its specifics poll horribly, but pollsters complain that they have trouble convincing people that it was an actual proposal.

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

The current federal operating "budget" and the "budgets" for the passed 3 years have been "absolutely nuts" already. And, going without an actual, passed budget is "absolutely nuts." A $1.3 trillion deficit, after the President promised in 2009 that it would be about $600 billion at this time, is "absolutely nuts." Calling Ryan's proposal "absolutely nuts" but defending the current unpassed "budget" and the Democrats' actions in Congress is "absolutely nuts."

And, the answer should be, if they don't like the Ryan budget, is to pass another budget instead of ducking, weaving and hiding from the issues. They're purposefully going without a budget.

We have a budget. Because the BCA has the force of law, the FY2012 federal budget had to conform to it (as does the 2013 one). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite ... ral_budget

Isn't. It's an end-around to avoid having to pass a budget. And, the way the federal government is spending money is "absolutely nuts." Not next year. Now.

[Gerald McGrew]

Of course he knew they wouldn't pass it.

Right, it was a political stunt.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

But leave NASA alone, right?