Where is the Senate budget? Waiting

Senate can only act upon a budget from the House.

Reid won't even look at the House budget because it is not based upon buying votes, excessive spending and taxing small businesses. The senate version will not look to cut even a peny from the bureaucratic waste in Washington but will just seek more money from the private sector in order to feed the black hole of waste and deficits.

Ruken, simple and true.

all of this is sickening. listen, if the right has problem with entitlment programs, then create some jobs by doing massive oversite. I am talking serious audits, knocking on peoples doors who receive federal assitance to see if they should be.

but other than that - leave it alone. What part about people needing help doesnt the GOP understand? Do they truely believe in the bull that the USA offers equal oppurtunity? well it doesnt. and cutting education isn't the place to start with that.

the richest 1% has seen their wealth and salaries sky rocket, and taxes go down. trickle down economics are fake. those people do not need 7 house, gold toliets and 9 cars.

leave you with a great quote that should be the basis for the recovery of this country. elizabeth warren 2016

"

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Reid won't even look at the House budget because it is not based upon buying votes, excessive spending and taxing small businesses.

Well this is one he should shelve. It's the biggest load of crap since the day after I last had Chipotle.

Iowa2011

Senate can only act upon a budget from the House.

This is a perfect example of a lie.

DON'T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA

I have lost all faith in our politicians. They no longer represent us. Shame on them, shame on us. The world is laughing at us, while our country is crumbling and falling apart. So sad...

Iowa, no they don't. You may want to actually read the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Ruken, what part are you referring to? If we keep spending at the rate we are then we will be in serious trouble. We have not even began paying for the stimulus, this was orchestrated to happen after the election because Obama would not stand a chance for reelection, and saying that you will see 10% prime car loans in the near future would be an understatement.

Ruken, what part are you referring to?

I'm referring to the part where they cut everything else but then scale back cuts (i.e. increase spending) on defense.

I guess the Dems won't vote for any budget.

The way it is supposed to work is now the Senate passes a budget, and both parties go into conference and compromise but if their is no Senate budget how can you come up with a deal?

Here we go again. The Tea Party:

1) wasting time

2)wasting our tax dollars

3) signing their own death warrant

Vote 'em all out!

Chop, Chop, Chop, Hogan.

Ruken, Do you think the world is a safe place with growing threats like Russia, China, Iran and Mexico? The cuts that are being repealed were just recently made...When America attacked Iraq one of the biggest complaints was that we did not go in strong enough, and this is attributed to a striped down military left over from the Clinton Administration.

Renege, plain and simple. The House seeks to get out of the penalty for not coming to a solution, not compromising and obstructing.

The defense is finally being cut and we have republicans to thank for not doing their job. Now, they regret it and want to find a way to keep the war machine building up.

Wonder why we don't see conservatives mentioning the fact that republicans failed to do their job and are being punished by cuts in places they don't want it?

Oh, that's right. It must be a democrat's fault for the House failing, somehow. Perhaps Obama prevented them from making a deal.

Funny how conservatives fail to mention that Obama offered a 4 trillion dollar deal and Boehner's flock said, "No".

How quick they point out that no democrat voted for Obama's budget yet leave out the fact that no republican did either.

Once again, we get toxic waste for a bill nobody in their right mind would want but politics demands republicans stand proud on a heaping pile of dung.

Hey, Eddie Munster, ooops I mean Paul Ryan, you think that tax cuts will close the deficits, balance the budget, and everything will be OK. How the hell do tax cuts balance anything?? Is it only the Tea-Publicans that think this way?? Because anyone with a brain knows that tax cuts decrease the revenues the gov't takes in therfore less money to balance the budget and deficitsHow about a balanced approach we all pay for, even though I've never taken a dime from the gov't. myself, I'm willing to pitch in. 50% taxes and 50% spending cuts and put that money toward paying off the debt.

Paul Ryan was shi*ting his pants as a baby while I was slogging through the jungles of Vietnam, fighting for my country instead of going to college which I wasn't able to do on the GI Bill because Congress defunded it after 10 years. Those weren't the rules when I enlisted but because they changed it 4 years after my discharge, I never had the opportunity to use it before it expired. All these people in Congress think they are serving their country by being in public service with a nice salary, insurance, retirement, and benefits paid for by all of us but which we will never recieve. Talk about sucking on the governments boob.

HYPOCRISY at it's finest and I wish they took as good of care of the people in the military that truly serve their country, as they do themselves. Keep your hands off my money Eddie, I earned mine unlike yourself and please have someone give you a haircut so you don't look like Eddie Munster, nobody can take you serious looking like that!!

We can do it, Your right about that, god only knows that "occupy" is not

1. Wasting anyone's time, but they still have accomplished nothing...

2. Wasting tax dollars, but they have managed to do over one hundred thousand dollars in park damage here in Portland Oregon, not to mention the one million dollars in police overtime that was attributed to "occupy"

3. Signing their own death warrant, Thought they were dead...but I guess after all that hard work they just went on winter break...such dedication!

The Republican "race to the bottom" budget is dead on arrival.

Try raising some revenues, of course you won't because it goes against the starving the beast policies that got us into this financial crisis.

Can somebody explain to me how the party that controls 1/3 is blamed for everything while the party that controls 2/3's is doing everything wonderful.

The only problem with that is the majority party will not submit a plan because they know that cuts are needed in Social Security and Medicare and refuse to mention it.

On the question of tax cuts please do your research and see if revenues to the government went up or down after the cuts. You will find that revenues increased so that changes that argument

Republican plan: No taxes for the rich, no health care for the old. That isn't a plan. We don't need a balanced budget, we need a surplus budget. Balancing a budget won't make the deficit go away, it will still get bigger accruing interest. Cut the US military entitlement program, that is $850 BILLION and they don't need all of it.

My biggest concern here is where they state "It would also eliminate unspecified tax breaks". Why are they unspecified and when are they going to be specified. Seems I heard all sorts of complaints about the ACA not revealing the details until signed. Isn't this the same thing? My bet is they are afraid to mention the "unspecified tax breaks" would be child tax credits and mortgage interest (things middle class people rely on)and not charitable contributions or whatever the wealthy are able to write off. I'm pretty sure Romney wouldn't appreciate having to pay a whopping 16% tax rate by having fewer deductions.

Shucks, now Mr. Obstructionist Reid will have to find more room in his desk draw to put the legislation.

Where is the Senate's plan ? Where is the Senate's budget for the past THREE YEARS ? Oh, that is right....Mr. Reid says he can run the Government WITHOUT A BUDGET.

Where is Pelosi, Dodd, Waters, Rangel, and Frankie when you need them ? Oh, some of them have bailed out and gone home.

Back to the "closed door" negotiations with the Supreme Court Justices on reading the 2,600 + page legislation, then selecting and choosing which part of ObamaCare will remain in effect.

Eric - when will you liberals realize that it was the "chicken in every pot", philosophy that got us here in the first place.

It wasn't a "chicken in every pot" it was monkey-boy bush in the white house.

Jonsmith93903.

That is the problem I have with liberals. All you can see is what is what in front of your nose hence you are way too ignorant to understand what got us into this mess. What's worse is that you are way too ignorant to keep us from getting into another one just as bad. The conditions that got us into such bad shape still exist.

The same senate that hasn't passed a budget in well over 1000 days take this one up? Won't happen. Mr. Harry "i never met a bill i won't table" Reid won't bring it up. He won't won't put up a counter proposal. There will be no discussion, debate or ammendmants. You will just hear cricketts from the senate about budgets as we have for years.

The only thing about a budget recently in the Senate was a vote on the Presidents budget last year that was brought up through procedures. It was voted down by the way 97-0. Thats right, it was so bad it didn't even get one democratic vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the deficit was pretty much under control until the Reagan years. He's the one that pushed everyone, both government and individuals, into accepting and even intentionally adding debt.

jerry l-1335133

Can somebody explain to me how the party that controls 1/3 is blamed for everything while the party that controls 2/3's is doing everything wonderful.

The only problem with that is the majority party will not submit a plan because they know that cuts are needed in Social Security and Medicare and refuse to mention it.

On the question of tax cuts please do your research and see if revenues to the government went up or down after the cuts. You will find that revenues increased so that changes that argument

Unfortunately, Jerry, the GOP controls 1/2 of the government, not 1/3. The House is obviously under their control, but the Senate is essentially theirs. Why??? The filibuster; the GOP has used the filibuster more times in a single year than in the past half-century. And because the Democrats don't have and never did have a supermajority in the Senate, the power always lay with the GOP. They just decided to take advantage of it when Obama came to office.

And on the question of tax cuts, it is irrelevant whether revenues increased after tax cuts were issued. Revenues did not necessarily increase because of those tax cuts; they increased because of population growth, inflation, economic growth; things like that. Tax cuts do not always reduce revenues but they almost always reduce the growth of revenues. The Bush tax cuts did that. So technically, the argument against tax cuts not only remains feasible; it becomes valid. Tax cuts only influence growth in times like recessions or when the tax rate is unreasonably high (say 90%, like in the days of President Eisenhower). I find it weird how the GOP bitch about increasing the marginal tax rate to around 40% when it is a fact that the wealthy will pay an effective tax rate that is closer to 25%. Tax cuts are a waste of money that could go into better things like education and healthcare.

The question should be "has anyone really looked at this budget?"

Let's just cover a few of the highlights:

It would increase spending from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022. That is a $1.3T increase over 10 years! The proposal that Republicans backed away from last Fall would have cut $4T over those same 10 years! That was unacceptable to Republicans then but an increase like this now is?

It wouldn’t balance the budget for 28 years. It only took 8 years for Republicans to blow out the budget, why the hell should it take 30 to rein it in?

It exempts defense from scheduled sequestration cuts. Defense is already scheduled to be cut by some $450 billion under the current 10-year budget caps. The sequester would cut an additional 10% from the national security budget in 2013 and roughly another 10% in 2014. This alone represents more than $1T increase in Defense spending over the next 10 years.

The current six income tax brackets are replaced with two—and the top bracket pays only 25 percent on their income, as opposed to 35 percent now. That’s a $2 trillion decrease in tax revenue for America’s top earners over the next ten years. But Ryan's plan calls for an increased revenue goal of 18 percent. That’s $5 trillion in new revenue over current levels needed over 10 years. Where is this $7T combined revenue increase going to come from?

And not one f'in word about the tax breaks that businesses have. I mean, they talk about closing tax loopholes, but what do we hear about tax breaks for corporations? [crickets chirping] that's right, not one word. You can bet those will be preserved!

Fact is, our problems are not rooted in Medicare and SS. Those were actually taken care of during the Clinton administration - at least until 2037, 7 years after this plan supposedly will balance the budget!

Our problem is NOT entitlements, our problem is NOT the current administration. Our problem is still rooted in Bush and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress who took the gains the Clinton administration made and spent all of them + another $6T on pork, two unfunded wars and tax breaks that we couldn't afford then and can afford even less now! So how do Republicans want to fix it? Another heaping round of tax breaks, funded by entitlement cuts (but not totally, they can't manage to break even until 2030, after all) and, of course, more Defense spending.

You know, George Orwell couldn't have possibly sold this plot! No one would have believed it!

LA you are not wrong. As seen on http://zfacts.com/, Reagan increased the debt more than any of his predecessors since FDR. Supply-side economics has never worked, and it never will.

BigATC, the President's budget was voted down because it was outdated at the time. If I remember correctly Obama himself had produced a new budget by that time.

The Republicans want to throw the elderly and poor under the bus while their rich friends ride first class. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for another Republican.

Mr Anon, while Reagan might have increased the debt he also increased revenue which in turn resulted in a lower debt to revenue level. It's never all about debt. Nor is it ever all about revenue. It's a balance of the two and Reagan struck a very good balance in his second term.

I recall at the end of Clinton's second term people saying how the U.S. had been experiencing an unprecedented 20 year economic boom. Do the math and then tell me when that first year was and who was in office to kick it off. And btw, there was only one Democrat president during that time and he rode the wave began by his predecessors. Or you can lie and do some more revisionist history.

again the republicans hack away at medicare. The elderly cannot afford to pay more for health care. They worked all their lives and paid into Social Security and part of that is medicare. They don't have the resources to change what they already pay as younger people do. Why don't the republicans try to live on what the average senior lives on for one year? And then pull the rug out and make them pay more for the health coverage that they want to cut out. They want to treat our elderly as if they don't matter, they will make many of our loved seniors end up dying from lack of medical care. What the hell has America come to if we allow this to happen? Just who are we? Are we so self centered and a me first country that we will stomp all over the elderly in this America?

If you people allow the Republicans to run this country you will be selling our way of life to the highest bidder and most of us won't even have a place to live, medical care, basics like food. We will become indentured slaves to another country... although you won't agree with me.

The Teaparty is alive and well, they want to keep women home and pregnant. They want full control of our health. And most of all they want us begging for help so that the corporations can take full advantage of our people. women out there think about that, having more children than you can take care of, No more careers-the only thing you have to look forward to is if your husband will give you a break so you can bathe. And they might not even be able to if they are the good husbands because corporations will expect him to work additional hours or lose his job (of course without the benefit of overtime pay). Wake up girls!

I recall at the end of Clinton's second term people saying how the U.S. had been experiencing an unprecedented 20 year economic boom.

You want to talk about revisionist history? I lived through that! Do you recall the recession of 1992? Try the Time magazine cover for Jan13th, 1992.

Or check out Wikipedia on George H.W. Bush's presidency:

However, economic recession and breaking his "no new taxes" pledge caused a sharp decline in his approval rating, and Bush was defeated in the 1992 election.

What dream world are you living in? 20 year economic boom indeed! Yet another attempt of the right to rewrite history!

Jack, I'd like a source for your claim that he increased revenue. I'm not talking about raw debt, I'm talking about debt compared to the GDP, and Reagan handled himself horribly there. Read the site I linked to.

Clinton's economic boom wasn't what got him a surplus. He cut military spending and raised taxes, both of which the current Republicans refuse to do. Bush senior was arguably a moderate at the later end of his term, acknowledging that 28% is a ridiculous rate for the top tax bracket, as historically it had been over 60%.

Reagan himself was a moderate compared to modern-day Republicans, as he fought to protect Social Security and Medicare, though ultimately he created neo-conservatism.

Obama's spending is bad for the debt but it would be easier if Reagan and the Bushes balanced their budgets. When you are in recession, you cut taxes and increase safety net spending. This is what got us out of the Great Depression (not the New Deal, which wasn't enough, but WWII spending that encouraged manufacturing).

It is true that Reagan had an economic boom, and we can give him some credit for that. However, he should have used this economic boom to fix the debt problem by slightly raising taxes (not just for the poor but for the rich as well) and cutting unnecessary military spending.

To be exact, much of Clinton's surplus was because of the boom, but I won't say that the tax increases and spending cuts had no effect, because they probably did.

And Jack, if Reagan's tax cuts were after the early 1980s recession subsided, than they did nothing to raise revenues; economic growth, increase in SS receipts, and inflation (along with population growth) did. But if they were during the recession, Reagan's tax cuts may have reversed the tide, although it would probably also be because of the spending.

Much like Obama's whispergate telling the Russians to wait until after the elections when the American people's angst won't mean anything, the Democrats in Congress are doing the same thing. They voted down the Obama budget, not one single Democrat vote in favor. But any responsible attempt to so solve some undeniable fiscal problems and not a single Democrat will sign on. Remind me again, who is the real party of no?

Occupy Congress. The Republicans idea of a balanced budget is cutting all essential services. Doesn't that just sound great?

It's interesting how critics of President Obama seem to make both of the following claims.

1. Obama is a horrible President because he never listens to the people!
2. Obama is a horrible President because all he cares about is getting votes and has no values!

You cannot claim both. As such, criticism of Obama's statement in Russia cannot be made if you are making claim 2.

Now, Rick, as to your claim about the Democratic budget, the Democrats in the House voted down Obama's budget because the Republicans were forcing them to vote on it for their own political purposes. Ryan's budget increases military spending, makes huge tax cuts, and eliminates much of Medicare. Most of its tax cuts help the rich, and most of its spending cuts hurt the poor. There is no worse way to cut the deficit.

The Party of No is still the GOP, Rick. All the right-wing propaganda in the world won't change that fact. So get used to it; saying otherwise is just a waste of time...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

, the House measure was essentially a political stage on which Republicans showed voters how they would run Washington if they win control in the November elections

MSNBC -- you call that "fair and balanced" reporting?

MSNBC -- you call that "fair and balanced" reporting?
Please. What else could this move be called? It has no chance in the Senate, therefore it is simply Republican posturing.

Satanick: The comment was directed at the reporting and the spin -- not the content. In a horse race MSNBC would not report the loser as a wimp, unless the journalism was biased.

Spin? Fair and balanced?

Fox News says the same thing.

House passage came on a near party-line, 228-191 vote. With its doom guaranteed in the Democratic-run Senate, the House measure was essentially a political stage on which Republicans showed voters how they would run Washington if they win control in the November elections -- and Democrats fired back by doing the same.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/house-poised-to-vote-on-gop-budget/#ixzz1qaHDvIqo

Hows it spinning when both sides say exactly the same thing?

My King has been knocked over!!

The Obama and the Democrats mantra is NO to tax cuts, NO to spending cuts, NO to balancing the budget, NO to reducing the national debt, NO to the Keystone Pipeline, NO to enforcing immigration laws, NO to new energy exploration, NO to closing Gitmo, NO...

I'm really sick of the B$ of pushing further tax cuts in this country. A significant portion of our deficit issues stem from the last round of tax cuts. (Reference? Here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490 - Here's a really important quote: "By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.")

AND everyone is guilty. Yes, the Obama budget was a steaming load of... Ryan's load is equally steamy and smelly. Yes, we need to cut back on entitlement programs as Ryan's plan has attempted -BUT- it needs to be across the board/impact everyone (not 62% coming at the expense of low-income programs).

Let's be honest our leadership on both sides is screwing everyone for political game. The only non-partisan part of the Republican proposal was the part about closing tax loopholes. We all need to accept the reality that we must roll back the stupid tax breaks (that have not produced the promised revenue growth, but have contributed drastically to annual deficits), kill all the stupid loop holes that exist for special interests on both sides, and propose rational cuts to defense and entitlements (the ballooning deficit contributors) for everyone (including at least a small portion applied to current senior citizens - fair is everyone that is complicit gets a share of the "joy" that is financial reality).

Rick-3416939

The Obama and the Democrats mantra is NO...

"NO" is the mantra of both sides. If you want anyone to call your statements anything other than more partisan rhetoric call it both ways.

Obama has a plan to bring down this nation, and the chosen method is a financial collapse. Obama has a globalist vision and he wants a seat at the table. When Obama's friends are George Soros, Bill Ayers, and Rev Jeremiah Wright it is our allies that should be worried. Here is a representation of what the Obama's think of this country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgWMI0hch8

Rick - and you think that tax cuts and unfunded wars that will contribute to over 50% of our annual deficit 5+ years from now aren't their own brand of financial collapse? Your blatant partisanship is showing. One side threw the baby out with the bath water and the other side then proceeded to kick it down the stairs. Who's more @#$% up? It isn't even possible to qualify/compare the two - they are both so egregiously ignorant as to defy comparison. In my opinion, as long as people like yourself continue to fling disingenuous invective on both sides, we are just going to spiral further into the hole. Grow up and call it both ways / demand better from both sides.

elliot-3020456

Iowa2011

Senate can only act upon a budget from the House.

This is a perfect example of a lie.

DON'T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA

Then believe the Constitution. All spending originates in the House. I though you Teabaggers knew all about the Constitution?

Obama has a plan to bring down this nation, and the chosen method is a financial collapse.

The ones who came closest to doing exactly what you accuse Obama of were George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Republican majorities in both houses (for 6 out of 8 years). We are still recovering from the effects of their disastrous economic policies. And you know what? The current Republican budget plan shows that they want to do the same damned thing all over again if given the power.

That is what the constitution states.

But to say that the senate can only act upon a budget from the house is a lie. The senate is expected to rehash the budget proposed by the president into an agreeable version with the house. For 1066 days the senate has refused to work out a budget, however, they did vote on the presidents proposed budget which received ZERO votes.

If you would like to have an adult conversation i suggest you drop the childish name calling and reference to lude sexual acts.

It all is the fault of both parties. What we need is to occupy the Federal government, all of it. So though I loathe the thought of having not only that sort of responsibility, but also the work schedule (uhg!) I see he need for a real blue collar AMERICAN to run this country and get it fixed.

SOOOOOOO...

I volunteer to accept the job if you all write me in and I win. I will put every proposal to vote...by the American people, not congress, who will within 4 years find themselves out of a job...all of them. No BS electoral crap, but simple majority. Our country CAN be great, and if given the opportunity I will ensure that it is. We will do away with divisionist (haha I know not a word but w/e Bush made em up so can I) party politics and get to a point where people run on their merits, not based on affiliation.

I love America, we have everything we need, we just need to use it effectively and stop this childish finger pointing, blame game, schoolyard antic bickering and get down to the nuts and bolts.

AMERICA 2012 !!

No f'ing way Americans will let republicans privatize Medicare, which is exactly what they want to do. That budget will be one of the many reasons republicans go down in November.

Are you saying that you are not mentally capable of doing your own finances? I know I am, especially without the government skimming off the top to pad their pockets before taking care of me with your money.

Get rid of the technical filibuster and do it old school. Make them get up and read from notes, speak out with their line of BS, read the newspaper, whatever. No more stalling everything on only the threat to filibuster.

Get rid of the technical filibuster and do it old school. Make them get up and read from notes, speak out with their line of BS, read the newspaper, whatever. No more stalling everything on only the threat to filibuster.

That's how it should be.

Boehner has the classic mug of a drunk.

The Obama and the Democrats mantra is NO to tax cuts, NO to spending cuts, NO to balancing the budget, NO to reducing the national debt, NO to the Keystone Pipeline, NO to enforcing immigration laws, NO to new energy exploration, NO to closing Gitmo, NO...

Rick, your kinda getting ahead of yourself. The Democrats technically have agreed to most of those things. The reason the Democrats oppose more spending cuts is because (A) they don't like where the cuts are going to (entitlements, domestic spending) and (B) because they don't want to keep giving in without getting anything in return, i.e. tax increases. The Democrats actually have made several plans to balance the budget and lower the debt, as have the Republicans; unfortunately, most are too partisan. As for the Keystone Pipeline, many union Democrats support it, and the reasons why Obama opposed it was because it would quickly forced upon him in an election year and it would be built over an aquifer that is the lifeline of America's agricultural Midwest. That, and I (a Democrat) oppose it because NONE of the oil would go to US consumers, therefore falsifying the GOP claim that the Keystone Pipeline will lower the price at the pump. As for energy exploration, I do personally wish that we exploited some more of our resources, but I think we also need to focus less on petroleum and more on green energy. We've had 40 years of domestic oil production; its about time we focused on renewable energy.

And yes, Obama and the Democrats oppose further tax cuts because, wait for it, tax cuts do NOTHING. They don't help the economy; they don't balance the budget; all they do is increase the deficit. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to make our economy boom; and yet we STILL had a recession. Where are the jobs??? Bush promised jobs in exchange for tax cuts, and all we got was a ballooning debt. Who in their right minds would think that tax cuts pay for themselves???? Don't tell that you do, Rick. Even with your ridiculous claims and impractical arguments, I think you are smart enough to realize that tax cuts don't work.

Oh and if the Democrats were against tax cuts, why did they extend the Bush tax cuts in 2010???? They originally wanted to let it expire only for the wealthy and keep them for the middle class (the real job creators), but the GOP blackmailed them by threatening to let unemployment benefits for millions of Americans to expire....

Obama Biden 2012

No to tax cuts 2012

Rick-312779

Eric - when will you liberals realize that it was the "chicken in every pot", philosophy that got us here in the first place.

Rick - When will you dam right-wingers realize that it was the "government is the problem" and "tax cuts for the rich trickle down to the rest of us" and "deficits don't matter" philosophy that got us her in the first place??? Face it; domestic programs for the poor and the middle class haven't caused the fiscal and economic mess that we're in. Stupid tax cuts that only benefited the wealthy, foreign military adventures in godforsaken lands, and deregulating the economy blew up the economy and our debt. Seek the truth, Rick, for you won't find it following the GOP. Seek the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

GOP EXTINCT 2012

The Obama and the Democrats mantra is NO to tax cuts,

I don't know where you got this. Obama cut taxes for virtually all Americans.

NO to spending cuts,

No, Obama cut military spending more than any other previous president.

NO to balancing the budget,

The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat.

NO to reducing the national debt,

Once again, the last president to lower the debt was a Democrat.

NO to the Keystone Pipeline,

You'll have to check your sources on that. Last time I checked Obama approved the pipeline.

NO to enforcing immigration laws,

Again, I'd like a citation for that.

NO to new energy exploration,

...

NO to closing Gitmo,

Obama tried harder than any other president to close down Gitmo. It was Republicans who stopped him.

Obama did NOT okay the keystone pipeline. What you saw in Oklahoma was a president taking credit for a section of pipeline that was beyond the purview of the federal government.

NO to enforcing immigration laws,

Obama has been the toughest on immigration. Read up and come back whe you learn that.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/188241-ice-announces-record-breaking-deportations

Go USA-851295

Obama did NOT okay the keystone pipeline. What you saw in Oklahoma was a president taking credit for a section of pipeline that was beyond the purview of the federal government.

Irrelevant. The burden of proof lies on you to support your claim that Obama opposes the pipeline. I have evidence that he supports it, but you have no evidence to the contrary.

Right Rejecting it and then later lobbing against it means he is really for it.

Again, you need evidence to support that he rejected it. All he did was postpone it so that an environmental review could take place.

You mean election?

He was forced to make a decision, he did. He rejected it. No postpone, no this, no that. Republicans brought it back up and what did he do. Lobbied against it.

Now gas goes up and he wants to fast track. Flip flop.

As I have said before, the Keystone pipeline exports oil, it doesn't get any oil for us. So your statement about gas prices is moot.

I'd like a citation for him lobbying against it. Again, how is issuing an official statement saying that he'd like to see the whole thing completed an example of him being opposed?

It puts oil here. It will be traded globally, but will stay here. Traded on the world market, no shipping, it stays here. win, win. no moot point. Plus we get to refine it, its $$$$ here not there.

He can say all day long that he supports it but he is on the record for rejecting it. It a walk like a duck ting

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-defends-opposition-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill-calling-it-ineffectual-sham

sorry I thought that it was cbs news, not cns, don't want the that's just republican whatever lies, here's Carney have to wait til the very end and he will confirm it but not to who. Both say the same anyway.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ca_1331261207

you are dreaming!

Restore the majority that rammed through legislation just as the Republicans are? We should boot all 435 of them and start completely over.

There were more than enough votes to pass this bill - and it did pass. Now it is up to the Senate to either vote on it ior come forward with their own version - a duty they haven't fulfilled since Reid took over. If they do then we will really see just how these two parties differ and which one is good for America vs. the one driving it into economic ruin! Clean out the Senate swamp in 2012 and get America back on to financial discipline.

The Ayn Rand, er, Paul Ryan budget will go down in flames again, just like it should. Since when do we base fiscal policy on the ravings of a Godless Russian repatriot that held contradictory opinions on everything she ever said?

This is just another part of the republican attack on democracy in favor of a corporate plutocracy. Give them some land and let them start another country, because they don't stand for American values.

The Senate will come up with their own budget, but the republican MINORITY won't let it go to the Senate floor for a vote, knowing full well that it would pass.

I really do hope the Democrats gain control of Congress in November. The GOP is such a waste.

It did pass. What part of the article didn't you understand?

It did pass. What part of the article didn't you understand?

It passed in the House.

Financial ruin will continue as long as the Republican policies of starving the beast are in effect.

Cavalier,

If you ever read Ayn Rand you would know that she would be completely against the Ryan budget and criticized the Republicans as much as the Democrats during her life.

Eric, when has government ever increased or contributed to GDP?

JustBidenMyTime - 11/2 10 happened for a reason.....Phase II in the Senate commences on 11/6/12!

You are right! It did! Now, just exactly what happened after that? The Republicans were elected to a majority in the House on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs! What exactly did they do? Let me refresh your memory:

They almost threw the country into default! They caused a downgrade of America's credit rating! And they did it with the same people in charge who voted no less than 7X to increase the national debt under Bush! Lies, all lies.

But it is different now, right? Somehow, we should believe that the same party that increased our national debt by $6T in 8 years now has the secret to balancing the budget? When?

Last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the new GOP budget, which he says makes the tough decisions necessary to bring our nation back to fiscal responsibility. His plan would reduce projected spending by more than $5.3 trillion over 10 years, address major entitlement reform and balance the budget by 2040.

Yep! That's a plan! It only took 8 years for Republicans under Bush and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for 6 years to turn a budget surplus into $6T additional debt, why the hell should it take 30 years to balance the budget? What isn't mentioned: It would increase spending from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022. It exempts defense from scheduled sequestration cuts. That alone represents more than $1T increase in Defense spending over the next 10 years. Another tax berak - the current six income tax brackets are replaced with two—and the top bracket pays only 25 percent on their income, as opposed to 35 percent now. That’s a $2 trillion decrease in tax revenue for America’s top earners over the next ten years. But this budget calls for an increased revenue goal of 18 percent. That’s $5 trillion in new revenue over current levels needed over 10 years. Where is this $7T combined revenue increase going to come from? Well, we don't know, details are still pending...

This isn't a plan, this is a joke! Given the Republican''s past record - no thanks! I'll stick with Obama!

US Congress passes phony “JOBS Act”

By Joseph Kishore

29 March 2012

With overwhelming bipartisan support, the US House of Representatives passed on Tuesday legislation that will significantly reduce regulations on many businesses. The act, already passed by the Senate, will soon be signed by president Obama.

The name of the Jump-Start Our Business Startup Act was chosen to yield the acronym “JOBS Act,” but this awkward terminological concession was the only nod the framers gave toward actual job creation. In reality, it is simply another corporate handout.

The JOBS Act is ostensibly targeted at small businesses, but it will in fact eliminate Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements for new companies with up to $1 billion in annual revenues. Consumer advocacy groups and some investor organizations warned that the main impact of the bill will be to facilitate financial fraud…

…he Deal Pipeline, a pro-industry web site, commented that “there is finally some good news from Washington for the private equity industry and in particular its portfolio companies.” Private equity portfolio companies—Carlyle, Blackstone, and Mitt Romney’s former firm Bain Capital, among others—are those that specialize in making billions through the insider dealing and skullduggery that goes by the name of the “capital market.”

That such a bill can be packaged as a “jobs” measure is testament to the putrefaction of the American media and political system.

Even according to data gathered by supporters, the bill “might” lead to an increase of about 100,000 jobs over 8 years or so. This compares to a jobs deficit of about 5 million relative to the number of jobs in the US in December 2007, before the official start of the recession…

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/jobs-m29.shtml

Time for another pitch fork rebellion?

Will, the GOP hasnt been conservative since BEFORE Raygun! What "conservative" GOP party would tolerate it's last 3 presidents signing TWENTY deficit riddled budgets that added over $11T to the debt AND saddled President Obama with a $1.3T deficit that persists even today???? What "conservative" GOP party would go on a spending spree like raygun/bush/bush did???

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm

Hardball Transcript/Video posted on Daily Kos... verbatim!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999759/-Hardball-Bruce-Bartlett-desroys-every-Republican-fiscal-talking-point-in-5-minutes-

BB: That's right, but in the Republican playbook, of course, the deficit is never caused by tax cuts-- BB: They go around saying they did not lose any revenue. A number of prominent officials, Mitch McConnell included, have said this. It's just mathematically ridiculous.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Bottom line: The GOP deliberately created the debt crisis, endangering national security, so they could try an convince us that privatizing SS and Medicare was the only solution. That doesnt sound conservative to me!

PS Bruce Bartlett was ASST. SEC Treasury under Reagan, and held a similar position in the Treasury department under bush 43! he was THERE!!

Tom---Do you write fir MSNBC? if not you should. You have taken my post and took it on a wild spin which makes not sense what so ever. The only real fact about the deficit you refer to is Obama and his cronies have increased it in three+ years more than any other President in history. In reading your post you would have us believe Obama was a Republican. And as I said we can not give this unqualified President more revenue. It would be a waste of money. If we can get rid of this man in 2012 then we can work on the tax codes, loop holes, medicare fraud and especially medicaid fraud. Stop giving tax payers money to illegals starting with Obama's aunt. Stop raiding the SS Fund. Obama has raided SS fund by using it as a tax reduction to Americans. Why not reduce income taxes to Americans? I'll tell you why. Number one it would reduce revenue to Obama and number two 47% of Americans already pay no income taxes.

Here's a suggestion for the Senate ~ pass the Ryan budget, unanimously, but with this caveat. The terms of that budget go into effect April 1, 2012. There is no current budget, just a continuing resolution ~ so implant the Republican budget with immediate effect. After six or seven months of its impact on Americans, there won't be a single Republican elected to or re-elected in congress. Not only will people hurt but the overall economy will tank long before election day. Call the remainder of 2012 a trial period for the Ryan budget. If it is all it is promised to be, we will be much better off and far happier than under the CR. If there was an assurance it would actually pass both houses, I wonder how many Republicans would ask for a reconsideration so they could change their vote?

I like your way of thinking Jim. Make sure when it's passed that we know what "unspecified tax breaks" will be cut out.

Will - here's the problem:

You just talk. Tom actually has links to support his views with facts. Who should I believe? Well, you, of course, because, because... what was the question again?

EEngineer---I guess that you are not up on current affairs and the deficit so here is a link you can go to to educate yourself.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush ...

www.cbsnews.com/.../national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obam...

You asked "what was the question again?" Well Mister EEngineer, read my posts and then answer my questions.

Jim, ----I think you have a great idea but I also think your rationing is a little off base. My rationing would be the following. Number one the economy has been in the tank for over four years so lets try something different. Number two the Democrats must feel this will work and are afraid of it and the loss of their jobs. Number three the country is so far in debt and we Americans have been hurting for four years, it will be necessary to hurt a little longer until the repairs can be made. So I go along with the test you propose but for a different reason.

Hey Will - You want to know why the deficit has increased so much?

Look at the charts here:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

And here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html

Yes, Obama has contributed to the deficit, but the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the tax cuts really start stacking up as you go into the future because of the cost of debt financing. Simply put, you and everyone else that throws the blame solely at Obama either spout what you have heard without doing your own research, do not understand some basic realities of debt finance, or are intentionally ommitting some of the details leading up to your statement of "facts."

So which is it? The more research I do, the more angry I get at both political parties and I suspect that would be true of anyone who actually tries doing a little research for themselves.

Will - so many lies...

The only real fact about the deficit you refer to is Obama and his cronies have increased it in three+ years more than any other President in history.

That simply is not true. Look it up. This government site lists the national debt by fiscal year (government fiscal year runs from Oct to Oct). Note that the CBS article you refernece doesn't agree with the real numbers. Bush started with $5.8T of national debt in October of 2001 (the 2000 budget was passed before he took office), his last budget, passed in Oct, 2008, running to Oct, 2009 left us with $11.9T, an increase of $6.1T over 8 years. Obama had no control over the 2009 budget and the record $1.9T deficit that Bush left him with.

Our current debt as of March, 2012 is $15.5T, so Obama has increased it by $3.5T, not anywhere near Bush's number.

Compare Obama's three years to any three of Bush's.

Compare Obama's three years to any three of Bush's.

I have.

Has not murdered US troops for vendettas. Bush killed 4000+ on a lie.

Got the US #1 most wanted. Bush said, "he wasn't a concern".

Reversed the bleeding of 700,000 jobs a month. Starting with AIG, deregulation under Bush caused not just the American economy to crash, but the global economy.

Stock up in record amounts.

Doomsday clock went back instead of forward.

I could go on all day.

So who has spent the most..... ever....
Bush killed no one, Iraq was Clinton's. Look up Iraqi liberation act,
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Bush never said that Bin Laden wasn't a concern. By the way did you realize 9 11 was planed on Clinton's watch. What did Clinton do to the CIA. Obama taking credit for killing Bin Laden is like Nixon taking credit for landing on the moon.

Obama has not reversed the job loss, its been a stagnate economy. Look at unemployment. Deregulation started with Carter. Bushes deregulation myth was passed by Clinton in 1999.

Doomsday clock? It just ticked, Meanwhile at the Justice League Aquaman summons a tuna fish sandwich.

Go on all day.
.

S. Capps

I've rebutted this same rhetoric before. Most of the comments are pre-Bush senior. What remains was false evidence presented to them by the Bush administration.

The Bush Administration made false accusations. #30 of the false documents where sent to the U.N. with Powell to rally for the war.

Everyone at that time, thanks to the false information presented believed Iraq was a threat.

It was all lies! Is it sinking in yet? Face it. You were duped, hornswaggled, tricked, or any other term you want to use to describe the actions of the Bush Administration, just as democrats and republicans, and ultimately, the U. N. were fooled.

Yet, here you are defending it, as if the information people used to form their opinions on where ordained by God but in fact, doctored by demons.

LMAO anyone that says Iraq was Clinton's is so stupid that I cant be bothered to read anything else they write, or say. Moron

If you will check the Dates they are Bill Clinton"s or Clinton era. Look Up the Iraqi Liberation act. Any moron can do that. Bush Walked into Clinton's Mess. You dont have to like it.

Well, lets let Clinton speak for himself on that issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7yKfXN4p0&feature=relmfu

Read the book.

Well lets just do that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p58KzMMpILY

When Clinton left office, Kuwait wasn't occupied by Iraq.

Funny, I can't find Clinton's name anywhere on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

You sure Clinton was in office when the U.S. kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? Everything I've found shows Bush senior as president at the time.

William Clinton 42nd President of the United States January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States military), was a conflict that occurred in Iraq from March 20, 2003^[41][42] to December 15, 2011

And... how does that mean anything towards Bush Jr. going back in to finish his father's work?

I'm pretty sure, no matter what happened in the past. Bush Jr. overthrew Saddam, not Clinton.

LOOK UP IRAQI LIBERATION ACT. Bush senior Liberated Kuwait, end mission. Clinton came up with the weapons of mass destruction thing. Bombed Iraq, December 1998, operation desert fox, it's the link provided above. Iraq was bombed several times during 1999 over 100 days. Clinton made it Americas policy for regime change in Iraq.

http://www.workers.org/ww/1999/iraqdem1021.php

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/airstrikes1.html

It was all lies! Is it sinking in yet? Face it. You were duped, hornswaggled, tricked, or any other term you want to use to describe the actions of the Bush Administration, just as democrats and republicans, and ultimately, the U. N. were fooled.

I am quite sure that was you who has been duped.

1999???

You are so far back in time. We are discussing the Iraq war. G.W. Bush liberating Iraq. You keep bringing up history like Bush Jr. attacked in 1999.

Why do you do that? Is it your desire to rewrite history?

I'm not refuting the evidence you've provided, I am in total agreement.

Can't you understand that there was no WMDs because they were already taken care of? Bush Jr. went back to Iraq on false information. Even you have posted it yourself:

Bombed Iraq, December 1998, operation desert fox, it's the link provided above. Iraq was bombed several times during 1999 over 100 days. Clinton made it Americas policy for regime change in Iraq.

Yet, you somehow, you keep reverting to the past, before the Iraq war started in 2003 under GW Bush.

Clinton Started the weapons of mass destruction lies you want to call them. Clinton started bombing Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Bush got elected, the world did not stop, the same exact problems where present. Bush continued on Clinton's path, the only difference Bush put boots on the ground. You blame Bush, this started with Clinton, it built up. Clinton created many of Bushes problems, not to mention 911 which Clinton tries to spin. Clinton even supported Bin Laden.

I am not rewriting history it is how it happened. Bush didn't attack in 1998 Clinton did. You keep ignoring that.

They weren't lies at the time. However, they were taken cared of when he bombed them. When Bush Jr. claimed there was WMD, he was lieing. They weren't found because Clinton already took care of them, get it?

We were all duped under Bush Jr.

We have a communication problem between the two of us. When I said you were duped, I meant the entire country and the U.N.

We went chasing after WMDs under Bush Jr. when there weren't any. We lost 4000+ lives trying to get WMDs (or so we were told) that was already bombed by Clinton.

Bush threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. WMDs stuck. He tried linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, he tried isotope tubes, he tried chemical weapons. With 30+ false documents sent to the U.N. with Powell, Bush Jr. led everyone to believe it was a just war.

I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Iraq is not Clinton's war when Clinton took care of it. Just because Bush Jr. says so doesn't make it fact. All evidence shows that Iraq was anything but a just war.

With your logic its not Bush"s war its Obama's war because well he screwed it up.

FrontPageMag Article

Write Comment
0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Printable Article
Email Article

Font: 10pt 12pt 14pt 16pt 18pt 20pt 22pt

Where the WMDs WentBy: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq.

FP: Mr. Tierney, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tierney: Thanks for the opportunity.

FP: With the Democrats now so viciously and hypocritically attacking Bush about WMDs, I’d like to discuss your own knowledge and expertise on this issue in connection to Iraq. You have always held thatIraq had weapons of mass destruction. Why? Can you discuss some actual finds?

Tierney: It was probably on my second inspection that I realized the Iraqis had no intention of ever cooperating. They had very successfully turned The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections during the eighties into tea parties, and had expected UNSCOM to turn out the same way. However, there was one fundamental difference between IAEA and UNSCOM that the Iraqis did not account for. There was a disincentive in IAEA inspections to be aggressive and intrusive, since the same standards could then be applied to the members states of the inspectors. IAEA had to consider the continued cooperation of all the member states. UNSCOM, however, was focused on enforcing and verifying one specific Security Council Resolution, 687, and the level of intrusiveness would depend on the cooperation from Iraq.

I came into the inspection program as an interrogator and Arabic linguist, so I crossed over various fields and spotted various deception techniques that may not have been noticed in only one field, such as chemical or biological. For instance, the Iraqis would ask in very reasonable tones that questionable documents be set aside until the end of the day, when a discussion would determine what was truly of interest to UNSCOM. The chief inspector, not wanting to appear like a knuckle-dragging ogre, would agree. Instead of setting the documents on a table in a stack, the Iraqis would set them side to side, filling the entire table top, and would place the most explosive documents on the edge of the table. At some point they would flood the room with people, and in the confusion abscond with the revealing documents.

This occurred at Tuwaitha Atomic Research Facility in 1996. A car tried to blow through an UNSCOM vehicle checkpoint at the gate. The car had a stack of documents about two feet high in the back seat. In the middle of the stack, I found a document with a Revolutionary Command Council letterhead that discussed Atomic projects with four number designations that were previously unknown. The Iraqis were extremely concerned. I turned the document over to the chief inspector, who then fell for the Iraqis’ “reasonable request” to lay it out on a table for later discussion. The Iraqis later flooded the room, and the document disappeared. Score one for the Iraqis.

On finds, the key word here is “find.” UNSCOM could pursue a lead and approach an inspection target from various angles to cut off an escape route, but at some point, the Iraqis would hold up their guns and keep us out.

A good example of this was the inspection of the 2^nd Armored Battalion of the Special Republican Guards in June 1997. We came in from three directions, because we knew the Iraqis had an operational center that tracked our movement and issued warnings. The vehicle I was in arrived at the gate first. There were two guards when we arrived, and over twenty within a minute, all extremely nervous.

The Iraqis had stopped the third group of our inspection team before it could close off the back of the installation. A few minutes later, a soldier came from inside the installation, and all the other guards gathered around him. He said something, there was a big laugh, and all the guards relaxed. A few moments later there was a radio call from the team that had been stopped short. They could hear truck engines through the tall (10”) grass in that area. When we were finally allowed in, our team went to the back gate. The Iraqis claimed the gate hadn’t been opened in months, but there was freshly ground rust at the gate hinges. There was a photo from overhead showing tractor trailers with missiles in the trailers leaving the facility.

When pressed, Tariq Aziz criticized the inspectors for not knowing the difference between a missile and a concrete guard tower. He never produced the guard towers for verification. It was during this period that Tariq Aziz pulled out his “no smoking gun” line. Tariq very cleverly changed the meaning of this phrase. The smoking gun refers to an indicator of what you are really looking for - the bullet. Tariq changed the meaning so smoking gun referred to the bullet, in this case the WMD, knowing that as long as there were armed guards between us and the weapons, we would never be able to “find,” as in “put our hands on,” the weapons of mass destruction. The western press mindlessly took this up and became the Iraqis’ tool. I will let the reader decide whether this inspection constitutes a smoking gun.

FP: So can you tell us about some other “smoking guns”?

Tierney: Sure. Another smoking gun was the inspection of the 2^nd Infantry Battalion of the Special Republican Guards. After verifying source information related to biological weapons formerly stored at theNational War College, we learned at another site that the unit responsible for guarding the biological weapons was stationed near the airport. We immediately dashed over there before the Iraqis could react, and forced them to lock us out. One of our vehicles took an elevated position where they could look inside the installation and see the Iraqis loading specialized containers on to trucks that matched the source description for the biological weapons containers. The Iraqis claimed that we had inspected the facilities a year earlier, so we didn’t need to inspect it again.

Another smoking gun was the inspection of Jabal Makhul Presidential Site. In June/July 1997 we inspected the 4^th Special Republican Guards Battalion in Bayji, north of Tikrit. This unit had been photographed taking equipment for the Electro-magnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS) method of uranium enrichment away from inspectors. The Iraqis were extremely nervous as this site, and hid any information on personnel who may have been involved with moving the equipment. This was also the site where the Iraqi official on the UNSCOM helicopter tried to grab the control and almost made the aircraft crash.

When I returned to the States, I learned that the Iraqis were extremely nervous that we were going to inspect an unspecified nearby site, and that they checked that certain code named items were in their proper place. I knew from this information the Iraqis could only be referring to Jabal Makhul Presidential Site, a sprawling mountain retreat on the other side of the ridge from the 4^th Battalion, assigned to guard the installation. This explained why the Iraqis caused the problems with the helicopter, to keep it from flying to the other side of the mountain.

We inspected Jabal Makhul in September of 1997. The Iraqis locked us out without a word of discussion. This was the start of the Presidential Site imbroglio. The Iraqis made great hay out of inspectors wanting to look under the president’s furniture, but this site, with its hundreds of acres, was the real target.

During the Presidential Site inspections in Spring of 1998, inspectors found an under-mountain storage area at Jabal Makhul. When the inspectors arrived, it was filled with drums of water. The Iraqis claimed that they used the storage area to store rainwater. Jabal Makhul had the Tigris River flowing by at the bottom of the mountain, and a massive pump to send water to the top of the mountain, where it would cascade down in fountains and waterfalls in Saddam’s own little Shangri-la, but the Iraqi had to go to the effort of digging out an underground bunker akin to our Cheyenne Mountain headquarters, just so they could store rainwater.

A London Sunday Times article in 2001 by Gwynne Roberts quoted an Iraqi defector as stating Iraq had nuclear weapons in a heavily guarded installation in the Hamrin mountains. Jabal Makhul is the most heavily guarded location in the Hamrin mountains. With its under-mountain bunker, isolation, and central location, it is the perfect place to store a high-value asset like a nuclear weapon.

On nukes, some analysts wait until there is unambiguous proof before stating a country has nuclear weapons. This may work in a courtroom, but intelligence is a different subject altogether. I believe it is more prudent to determine what is axiomatic given a nation’s capabilities and intentions. There was no question that Iraq had triggering mechanisms for a nuke, the question was whether they had enriched enough uranium. Given Iraq’s intensive efforts to build a nuke prior to the Gulf War, their efforts to hide uranium enrichment material from inspectors, the fact that Israel had a nuke but no Arab state could claim the same, my first-hand knowledge of the limits of UNSCOM and IAEA capabilities, and Iraqi efforts to buy yellowcake uranium abroad (Joe Wilson tea parties notwithstanding), I believe the TWELVE years between 1991 and 2003 was more than enough time to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. Maybe I have more respect for the Iraqis’ capabilities than some.

FP: Tell us something you came up with while conducting counter-infiltration ops in Iraq.

Tierney: While I was engaged in these operations in Baghdad in 2004, one of the local translators freely stated in his security interview that he worked for the purchasing department of the nuclear weapons program prior to and during the First Gulf War. He said that Saddam purchased such large quantities of precision machining equipment that he could give up some to inspections, or lose some to bombing, and still have enough for his weapons program. This translator also stated that when Saddam took human shields and placed some at Tarmiya Nuclear Research Facility, he was sent there to act as a translator. One of the security officers at Tarmiya told him that he had just recovered from a sickness he incurred while guarding technicians working in an underground facility nearby. The security officer stated that the technicians left for a break every half hour, but he stayed in the underground chamber all day and got sick. The security officer didn’t mention what they were doing, but I would say uranium enrichment is the most logical pick.

What, not enough smoke? There was the missile inspection on Ma’moun Establishment. I was teamed with two computer forensic specialists. A local technician stood by while we opened a computer and found a flight simulation for a missile taking off from the Iraqi desert in the same area used during the First Gulf War and flying west towards Israel. The warhead was only for 50 kilograms. By the time we understood was this was, the poor technician was coming apart. I will never forget meeting his eyes, and both of us realizing he was a dead man walking. The Iraqis tried to say that the computer had just been transferred from another facility, and that the flight simulation had not been erased from before the war. The document’s placement in the file manager, and the technician’s reaction belied this story. UNSCOM’s original assessment was that this was for a biological warhead, but I have since seen reporting that make me think it was for a nuclear weapon.

These are only some of the observations of one inspector. I know of other inspections where there were clear indicators the Iraqis were hiding weapons from the inspectors.

FP: Ok, so where did the WMDs go?

Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria. Starting in the Summer of 2002, the Iraqis had months to purge their files and create cover stories, such as the letter from Hossam Amin, head of the Iraqi outfit that monitored the weapons inspectors, stating after Hussein Kamal’s defection that the weapons were all destroyed in 1991.

I was on the inspections that follow-up on Hussein Kamal’s defection, and Hossam said at the time that Hussein Kamal had a secret cabal that kept the weapons without the knowledge of the Iraqi government. It was pure pleasure disemboweling this cover story. Yet the consensus at DIA is that Iraq got rid of its weapons in 1991. This is truly scary. If true, when and where did Saddam have a change of heart? This is the same man who crowed after 9/11, then went silent after news broke that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague. Did Saddam spend a month with Mother Theresa, or go to a mountain top in the Himalaya’s? Those that say there were no weapons have to prove that Saddam had a change of heart. I await their evidence with interest.

FP: So do you think the WMD is the central issue regarding Iraq?

Tierney: No, and it never should have been an issue. The First Gulf War -- and I use this term as a convention, since this is actually all the same war -- was a prime example of managing war instead of waging it. Instead of telling Saddam to get out of Kuwait or we will push him out, we should have said to get out of Kuwait or we will remove him from power. As it was, we were projecting our respect for human life on Saddam, when actually, from his point of view, we were doing him a favor by killing mostly Shi’ite military members who were a threat to his regime. I realize that Saudi Arabia, our host, did not want a change in government in Iraq, and they had helped us bring down the Soviet Union with oil price manipulation, but we should have bent them to our will instead of vice versa. Saddam would not have risked losing power to keep Kuwait, and we could have avoided this whole ordeal.

We topped one mistake with another, expecting Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, a criminal syndicate masquerading as a political party, to abide by any arms control agreement. Gun control and Arms control both arise from the “mankind is good” worldview. If you control the environment, i.e. get rid of the guns, then man’s natural goodness will rise to the surface. I hope it is evidence after more than a decade of Iraqi intransigence how foolish this position is. The sobering fact is that if a nation feels it is in their best interest to have certain weapons, they are going to have them. Chemical weapons were critical to warding off hoards of Iranian fighters, and the Iraqis knew they would always be in a position of weakness againstIsrael without nuclear weapons. The United States kept nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union, but we would deny the same logic for Iraq?

There is also the practicality of weapons inspections/weapons hunts. After seventeen resolutions pleading with the Iraqis to be nice, the light bulb still didn’t go off that the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. Would you like to live in a city where the police chief sent out resolutions to criminals to play nice, instead of taking them off the streets?

As I said earlier, I knew the Iraqis would never cooperate, so the inspections became a matter of illustrating this non-cooperation for the Security Council and the rest of the world. No manipulation or fabrication was necessary. There was a sufficient percentage of defectors with accurate information to ensure that we would catch the Iraqis in the act. UNSCOM was very successfully at verifying the Iraqis’ non-cooperation; the failure was in the cowardice at the Security Council. Maybe cowardice is too strong a word. Maybe the problem was giving a mission that entailed the possible use of force to an organization with the goal of eliminating the use of force.

On the post-war weapons hunt, the arrogance and hubris of the intelligence community is such that they can’t entertain the possibility that they just failed to find the weapons because the Iraqis did a good job cleaning up prior to their arrival. This reminds me of the police chief who announced on television plans to raid a secret drug factor on the outskirts of town. At the time appointed, the police, all twelve of them, lined up behind each other at the front door, knocked and waiting for the druggies to answer, as protocol required. After ten minute of toilet flushing and back-door slamming, somebody came to the front door in a bathrobe and explained he had been in the shower. The police took his story at face value, even though his was dry as a bone, then police proceeded to inspect the premises ensuring that the legal, moral , ethnic, human, and animal rights, and also the national dignity, of the druggies was preserved. After a search, the police chief announced THERE WERE NO STOCKPILES of drugs at the inspected site. Anyone care to move to this city?

FP: Let’s talk a little bit more about how the WMDs disappeared.

Tierney: In Iraq’s case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door. Even though there was imagery showing an inordinate amount of traffic into Syria prior to the inspections, and there were other indicators of government control of commercial trucking that could be used to ship the weapons to Syria, from the ICs point of view, if there is no positive evidence that the movement occurred, it never happened. This conclusion is the consequence of confusing litigation with intelligence. Litigation depends on evidence, intelligence depends on indicators. Picture yourself as a German intelligence officer in Northern France in April 1944. When asked where will the Allies land, you reply “I would be happy to tell you when I have solid, legal proof, sir. We will have to wait until they actually land.” You won’t last very long. That officer would have to take in all the indicators, factor in deception, and make an assessment (this is a fancy intelligence word for an educated guess).

The Democrats understand the difference between the two concepts, but have no qualms about blurring the distinction for political gain. This is despicable. This has brought great harm to our nation’s credibility with our allies. A perfect example is Senator Levin waving deception by one single source, al-Libi, to try and convince us that this is evidence there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as though the entire argument rested on this one source. Senator Levin, and his media servants, think the public can’t read through his duplicity. He is plunging a dagger into the heart of his own country.

Could the assessments of Iraq’s weapons program been off? I am sure there were some marginal details that were incorrect, but on the matter of whether Iraq had a program, the error was not with the pre-war assessment, the error was with the weapons hunt.

I could speak at length about the problems with the weapons hunt. Mr. Hanson has an excellent article in “The American Thinker,” and Judith Miller, one of the few bright lights at the New York Times, did an article on the problems with the weapons hunt that I can corroborate from other sources. But if the Iraqi Survey Group had been manned by a thousand James Bonds, and every prop was where it should have been, I doubt the result would have been much different. The whole concept of international arms inspections puts too much advantage with the inspected country. Factor in the brutality used by the Baath Party, and it amounts to a winning combination for our opponents.

I was shocked to learn recently that members of the Iraqi Survey Group believed their Iraqi sources when they said they don’t fear a return of the Baath Party. During my eight months of counterinfiltration duty, we had 50 local Iraqis working on our post who were murdered for collaborating. Of the more than 150 local employees our team identified as security threats, the most sophisticated infiltrators came from the Baath Party. This was just one post, yet the DIA believes no one was afraid to talk, even though scientists who were cooperating with ISG were murdered. You can add this to the Able Danger affair as another example of the deep rot inside the intelligence community.

I believe that once the pertinent sources have a sense of security, a whole lot of people are going to have egg on their face. I believe the Iraqis had a WMD program, and I am not changing my story, no matter how many times Chris Matthews hyperventilates.

FP: Before we go, can you briefly touch on some of the prevailing attitudes in the U.S. military that may hurt us?

Tierney: There is a prevailing attitude that the U.S. is too big and ponderous to lose, so individual officers don’t have to take the potentially career-threatening risks necessary to win. I have heard it said that for every one true warrior in the military, there are two to three self-serving, career-worshipping bureaucrats. We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, the Army advertised “Be all you can be!” Or in other words, get a career at taxpayer expense.

President Clinton changed the definition of the military from peace makers to peace keepers, and no senior officers resigned or objected. President Clinton took a one star general who ran a humanitarian effort inNorthern Iraq, Shalikashvilli, and made him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The signal was out, warriors need not apply. Shalikashvilli later spoke at a U.N. meeting and listed the roles for the military in the “Revolution in Military Affairs.” He included warm and fuzzy things like “confidence building,” but failed to mention waging war. In my five years at CENTCOM headquarters, I very rarely heard the words, “war,” “enemy,” or “winning.” This was all absorbed into the wonderful term “strike operations.”

Operation Desert Fox was a perfect example of the uselessness of strike operations. Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started just after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid as to start a bombing campaign and just stop.

It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program. We didn’t break his will, we didn’t destroy his weapons making capability (The Iraqis simply moved most of the precision machinery out prior to the strikes, then rebuilt the buildings), but we did kill some Iraqi bystanders, just so President Clinton could say “something must be done, so I did something.”

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6629

during an appearance on "Larry King Live" back in July 2003, the former president said: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html

In October of that year, six months after the war ended, Clinton discussed Iraq with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Barroso said: "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructionuntil the end of the Saddam regime."
http://67.43.13.183/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/110onrch.asp

Clinton left Bush a mess, Clinton made regime change the American stance. Clinton did not deal with it and brought on 9/11. Bush did not find wmd, but had to clean up after Clinton.

It all falls back to the "Corporations are People too" Republican mentality.

Very true try reality. I think I'm going to incorporate myself as a corporation and see if the repubs will just throw a few million at me.

Well we know what a bunch of freeloaders the students, the sick and the elderly are. It's about time they cut off these welfare cases. I can't believe we have so many people in this country who think they should be able to go to first grade ON OUR DIME. These children need to work for their education (you know, Newt's plan). Then I can use all that money they are going to stick in my pocket to pay for the car repairs I'll need from driving down a pot-hole riddled road due to those cuts.

dboygoode,

Why not just claim to be a green company and you can get hundreds of millions right now from the Democrats.

jerry l-whatever - Why not just claim to be a green company and you can get hundreds of millions right now from the Democrats.

Because it is much more profitable to be a war profiteer, ala Halliburton, and get $billions from Republicans! Which would you choose?

At least the products in the defense industry work as intended. Those of the green industry - not so much. Oh, and the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan has been approved in a bi-partisan basis not to spoil your little rant about those mean republicans.

That issue will be resolved on 11/6/12 as it was on 11/2/10.

Nothing to benefit the American People was passed in the House since the Tea Party took over, must be an election coming up. The Senate needs 60 votes so the Republicans need to step up to the plate for once.

try -

How would we even know since Reid automatically trash cans anything sponsored by republicans?

We already know that the democrat-controlled policies aren't working (no budget since 2009 is just one example, Obamacare is another).

Don't you think it's time to try something different?

That issue will be resolved on 11/6/12 as it was on 11/2/10.

WHat a joke. What was 'resolved', exactly? The teatards havent solved any problem. Not debt, deficit, jobs, healthcare, they couldnt even put up a candidate for president. The Teaturd scorecard reads ZERO

This entire scenario is nothing more than election year theater ~ a game played by political parties in hopes of gaining a slight advantage in the election outcome. This budget was a safe vote for Republicans who could record their unity and bolster their ideology, knowing it wouldn't see the light of day in the Senate. I'd bet the rent money that if Senate Democrats lowered the tax rate a full percentage point but agreed to every other provision, sending the bill back to the House for this correction would result in one-third of Republicans voting against the amended measure. Like I stated, its was a safe vote in the House designed to be nothing more than window dressing in an election year. They knew it wouldn't pass the Senate, so what was the risk? None.

JusBidenMyTime

That issue will be resolved on 11/6/12 as it was on 11/2/10.

Yup I agree, we will finally see what Obama can do while he is not afraid of ruining his chances at re-election. If you idiots seriously think that any of the choices you are throwing at America have even a remote chance of winning the election without some sort of BS theft like you did with Bush...you need to pull your heads out of each others rear ends.

Personally I would like to see a real candidate, from neither party, who grew up poor or middle class and has a grasp on reality. Definitely not someone that morons like you support.

Tammy

How would we even know since Reid automatically trash cans anything sponsored by republicans?

Yeah because Boner and his cronies don't fight against anything the Dems try? Seriously...clean up your own back yard before you go trying to clean up others.

Paul - See you at the polls......and please bring your "attitude" with you.....it will make my "X" ing out your vote with my vote all that more pleasurable.........

I get what you're saying.

But that might make them even more dependent on the donations from corporations and other rich "people".

Truth is that no matter how much you give them or take away.... they are NEVER letting go of that money stream, NEVER!!!! They are such a greedy bunch that a million dollars is nothing to them, they now look at billions! All they know is corruption, lobbying and influence peddling.....

Time to vote them all out of office, let's put a stop to all of them... beginning with this inept Boehner, Ryan and the weasel Cantor among a whole litany of others.....

Maybe we could put them on a pay scale based on what they accomplish rather than wasting time on what they know will never pass anyway (and yes we can say that about both parties).

But the Republicans are all about helping the middle class ;)

what was the unemployment rate(s) during GW Bush's presidency? what was that debt that was handed to this president? Everything you insinuate is generalizations. How about some factual data?

Bush got handed a very large surplus by Clinton's administration, don't you remember? W got rid of it pronto with his illegal wars and spending..... plus the mess he left behind which we still live with today

The unemployment rate during Bush's presidency averaged roughly 5%, which is much less than the current rate. However, it was about 4% when Bush took office and almost 8% when he left -- and skyrocketing.

Unemployment rose to more than 10% in the first few months of Obama's administration. The Jobs Stimulus bill managed to bring it down to about where it is now, roughly 8.2%. It's been stuck there for about a year because of lockstep opposition by the other party.

Much of the spending that has contributed to the debt was mandated before Obama took office, so he had no choice in the matter. I don't remember what the amount was. You can probably find it through Google if you're interested in "factual data," which I doubt.

But since we're asking questions, let me ask one. Do you honestly believe that if the highest marginal income tax rate is reduced to 25% (it was more than 90% during the prosperous 50s), that the corporate lobbyists would allow the tax loopholes for their clients to be closed?

The US Chamber of Commerce more than doubled its spending on lobbying between 2000 and 2008. Do you have a lobbyist in Washington working on your behalf?

garcia -

Clinton's supposed 'surplus' never materialized. Also, the debt actually increased every year that Clinton was in office - one only has to look at the government's own data to see that particular fact. The only reason that there was as little additional debt as there was, was due to accounting shenanigans - by all parties.

So, I am calling your lie what it is ---

A LIE!

Must be a Faux nonews or a Rush Limburger fact!!! Oh I forgot Glenn Beck. Get the real facts Look up the data from the Congressional Budget Office during that"LIE" period.

Clinton's supposed 'surplus' never materialized.

Oh, yes it did. You will recall (as most do) that GW campaigned in 2000 on returning the surplus to the people. "Its the people's money, they deserve to have it back." Then shortly after entering office, the government started issuing $300 and $600 dollar tax refund checks to taxpayers. Those funds were covered by the "surplus" that never materialized. Otherwise, there would have been no justification for any refund and the money to cover them would not exist. Where did the money come from to cover those checks, Tammy? Either the surplus existed, or GW's tax refund plan was improperly (or perhaps, illegally) drawn from misappropriated or borrowed funds. The refund checks were real, they were cashed, and the money to cover them was not speculation or projections. Perhaps you can explain this in some rational manner?

Perhaps you can explain this in some rational manner?

hahaha, Jim you are such an optimist. And I suppose you think Rush thinks of women as equal and Santorum thinks that Gay people have rights.

what was the unemployment rate(s) during GW Bush's presidency? what was that debt that was handed to this president? Everything you insinuate is generalizations. How about some factual data?

Unemployment rate: when Bush was elected (Jan, 2000) = 5.5%: when Bush left ( 2008 - ignoring any effects of the recession he left for Obama) = 7.0% LOSER! (source)

Debt: when Bush was elected = (2001, last Clinton budget) $5.8T: when Bush left (2009, last Bush budget) = $11.9T LOSER! (source)

Anything more you want to know?

At least 3.

The Democrats have 51 votes but a bill requires 60 votes, you figure it out.

It would be counter productive for the senate to make a democratic bill. If it somehow got passed thought the senate, it would be shot down in the house. I doubt the first draft would be completed before it was ended.

the first 2 years of Obama's presidency the democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and passed nothing. NOTHING

No Harbinger. The correct answer is ZERO. Contrary to what you might ass-u-me, Reid (the true Congressional Obstructionist) has not passed a budget in three years.

In all the years prior to that its been the case of

1) The House passes a budget
2) The Senate passes a budget
3) The two budgets go into committee with representatives from the House and Senate--a compromise is reached.
4) The House votes on the compromised budget
5) The Senate votes on the compromised budget
6) The budget goes to the President

It's been THREE years since we've seen Step #2

Steve: We passed a lot of bills, where were you, IN A COMMA?

refer to Diogenes22, he is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#The_process

There you go people.

Steve,

You are simply spouting repub propaganda. The Senate has passed a budget every single year. The government would have shut down on October 31 of any year they didn't.

@MasterQ:

The last time Congress passed all of its spending bills by the Oct. 1 deadline, Seinfeld was on television and people were dancing the Macarena.

For the 14th year in a row, Congress missed the deadline for the fiscal year that began Saturday -- as it did last year, passing eight stopgap spending measures that often brought the government within days or hours of shutting down.

From Oct of last year - http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2011-10-04-Broken-Budget_ST_U.htm

@MasterQ...

No. They are not passing Budgets they are passing Continuing Resolutions to keep the money flowing in Washington.

the first 2 years of Obama's presidency the democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and passed nothing. NOTHING

Because they NEVER had 60 votes. You need to stop perpetuating that LIE.

It used to take 51 with the rare filibuster. With the obstructionist GOP, you alweays need 60 because they always filibuster. FACT

The did pass the Stimulus and the Affordable Healthcare Act which means they had the ability if they wanted. FACT

JOS1.....Maybe what happened to the House on 11/2/10 needs to happen to the Senate on 11/6/12?

Well, maybe... but only if anything positive happened after 11/2/2010. What the hell would that be? The debt "crisis" caused only by the zealots that were elected in 2010? I don't think so. Maybe the total lack of any Congressional action for 2 years? I don't think so!

They lose sleep over that fact.

You guys need to get the saw dust out of your heads. Obama is the worst excuse for a President the United States has ever had. He is a hard core Socialist that has nothing but Big Brother running your lives... Don't be an idiot and vote for that fool again.

They lose sleep over that fact.

And they disenfranchise voters by their 'return-to-Jim Crow' voting laws. Their 'white' country is disappearing and they are scared.

It's not that Republican voters don't like African-Americans.

Your right, they also hate Hispanics, Gays and Women . The GOP: equal-opportunity hatred

Emmettone: You are a MORON!!!! The worst President ever was GWB. Period!!!!!

Emmet One, if Obama were a "socialist" -- if the term were being used accurately -- he would be moving towards a government take over of hospitals and putting doctors on public salary. Socialism exists when the government owns the primary institutions, and you get to own your consumer goods.

I'm afraid that you've been listening exclusively to news sources that don't use language responsibly. That irresponsibility bleeds into public attitudes. ("Keep your government hands off my Medicar.")

I'll give you an example. Every medical authority agrees that there is an epidemic of obesity in the USA. Michelle Obama recommends that healthier options be available in school lunch rooms. Therefore, "Michelle Obama is telling us what to eat."

If you want to follow that logic, no one can stop you, but it leads to false conclusions.

Obama is the worst excuse for a President the United States has ever had.

I need facts! Give me facts! How?

No matter what you say, the worst president we ever had was George W. Bush. History will not be kind!

I dunno I hated Bush but have we forgot about Nixon??! C'mon guys worst ever means the ones before you were old enough to be weaned as well. Yeah Bush was absolutely horrible, the way he was elected was horrible, and...well maybe you are right.... Wow! who ever would have thought Bush would make Nixon look like a saint?!

Technically, Nixon did some good things, like establishing social safety nets and advocating for universal healthcare. Unfortunately, he go smudged by Watergate and the Vietnam War.

And to be honest, the 3 worst presidents in the history of the 20th and 21st century are as follows: George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. I put Ronald Reagan as 2nd because he's the one who introduced us to failed supply-side economics and who helped the explosion of economic inequality in America.

Obama Biden 2012

Nixon? Vietnam? How about Johnson.

Nixon did get impeached so I would agree there, next I would go with Grant then Obama.

Sorry, S. Capps, but I don't see any illegal actions committed by the president; do you??? Obamacare doesn't count, because there is a pretty good chance (50-50) that it will be upheld.

Education is funded mostly with local dollars as it should be. It is not a federal function. As for Medicare, the only actual cut that has been signed into law was signed by Obama.

Who needs the tax breaks more right now? Would it be Big Oil and the Wall Street Barrons or the working Middle Class and less fortunate?

Republican tax "breaks" need to paid for somehow. It's pretty easy to say "I'm going to lower your tax RATE" but at the same time, take away or put a cap on critical deductions. Middle-class Americans rely on their tax REFUND more so than having the bracket lowered. The phrase 'eliminate unspecified tax breaks' is the scariest thing in the world, you never know what 'limits' you're going to hit. I make just $100k a year and I already am disqualified from deducting my student loan interest. I hit my caps for my deductions for my job. That's why my effective tax rate was 18% and Gov Romney is less than 15%? Just not fair.

Want to bet how many people in the 15% bracket have the money to invest in order to accrue long term capital gains or qualified dividends? My take is that all their money goes to paying for utilities, groceries, school, etc.

Hey, I gross $25,000 a year! I'm gonna go invest in a factory and buy me ten grand in preferred stock!

I'll bet there are millions of Americans in the 15% or lower tax brackets that accumulate stock, mutual funds, bonds, and get dividends on those investments. MILLIONS

Notice how the Ryan plan EXCLUDES the baby boomers from reform? Why? They are the generation that s going to bankrupt SS, so how the hell do they get off scott free with no sacrifice? Not even a moderate Medicare Premium Increase Its all about trying for draconion cuts without affecting senior vote.

They figure they wont oppose the cuts if they dont aply to them. SHAME

No debt reductiuon plan will ever pass without SHARED SACRIFICE. That means every one. Otherwise its just not bgoing to work.

Notice how the Ryan plan EXCLUDES the baby boomers from reform? Why?

Because if they don't have white men and old white women vote for them they won't have anyone left except for the mentally ill and the extreme evangelicals.

Also those in the 15% bracket for gross income pay no taxes on long term capital gains and qualified dividends. That's a huge benefit.

Doesn't really matter, does it? In the Ryan plan, the top wage earners get a reduction from a current 35% to 25%. And that plan eliminates capital gains tax altogether, doesn't it? So, tel;l me, what do all these rich people pay under the Ryan (GOP) plan?

Read your own post. You kinda answered it.

B Garcia: Name those "real first world countries" will you please? By the way, I must say this rant of yours sounds like something from Fidel Castro or perhaps Karl Marx. Here's a hot flash for you. Everyone in this country, that is not one of the rich, is not themselves poor or elderly and on their last economic legs. There are millions of people at all levels in-between. IT's really sad that there are people that think like you, really really sad.

I must say this rant of yours sounds like something from Fidel Castro or perhaps Karl Marx

You do realize that the percieved 'socialism' insult has become impotent, right? You really need to go with something new. But hey its better to distract when your party has NO IDEAS for jobs or healthcare

So, Steve, what are the GOP plans for jobs? Where are the GOP solutions? All this campaigning by the GOP Clown Car Poss, and no economic plan at all.....

Got Solutions?

I must say this rant of yours sounds like something from Fidel Castro or perhaps Karl Marx.

But what I see is that the current political norm is towards socializing loss but privatizing profit! When companies lose they run to the government, hoping that public money will save them because they are "too big to fail" but, when they make obscene profits "don't tax me (take my profits), I am the job creator!"

Where is the middle ground in this situation?

Defense has been cut, Ryan did propose a change to Medicare and the response was the Democrats talking about throwing grandma over a cliff. They have talked about means testing so the rich do not receive benefits and the rich paying higher rates.

The Republicans have talked about raising the retirement age for those to collect S.S. for those under 55. Please do your research and find out which party is not putting out proposals.

No, no, no! Ryan's first point in budget - exempt defense from scheduled sequestration cuts.

What, are you stupid?

Yes---Just like Nancy said"You need to pass it and then find out what is in it". God, you people are so hypocritical. And you talk about throwing Grandma off the cliff with out pointing to anything in the Ryan budget that would do that. But when Obamacare cut 500B out of medicare that was OK? When Obama is shorting the SS fund by reducing the contribution as a tax cut, That's OK? What a bunch of idiots following and supporting this unqualified President.

Obamacare cut $500 billion from future increases in Medicare spending. It's funny how you Republitards think that cutting increased spending isn't cutting spending at all unless it seems politically viable to say that, huh??

The "for profit prison system" Lobbyists wouldn't allow Marijuana to become legal, that's Their bread and butter.

This is the consummate example of what's wrong with the Republican mindset.

Yep, you can be for it, but if an opponent is for it, be against it. Your position must change when the wind blows.

Whatever a democrat proposes, even if you were for it, regardless of principles, you must immediately be against it.

Whats that? You say you proposed it first? Well, if a democrat likes it, you must immediately hate it.

You voted for it in the past? You must vote against it if a democrat votes for it.

The democratic president agrees with you? You must denounce it! Find some way to make it a socialistic idea.

But, I thought the idea up myself, I voted for it, my colleagues voted for it, the constituents wanted it...

Good Grief! What part of obstructionism don't you understand!?! No, eat your peas and carrots and oppose everything!!!

But I might lose my re-election!

You're taking one for the team! Now oppose everything even if it kills everyone in the country!

I see your open minded! At least it's a plan and starting point.. Harry and obamacarter don't have one. They're clueless.

It's a plan that they know no rational person would accept.

Only the republicans should be voted out for their hateful behavior and their corporate fealty.

I completely agree, all federal government should be fired and held accountable..personally accountable for what they have done to this country due to their bickering and finger pointing.

Gravy and Santorum should not be used in the same sentence! That's enough to make anyone puke!