Obama Budget: 99 Senators Against, 0 For

Tyler Durden's picture

Two months ago, Congress voted down the "Obama budget" by a vote of 414-0. Today, the Senate chimed in. The result was just as definitive. Final outcome, between the Congress and the Senate, a grand total of zero votes were cast for the Obama budget... and a mere 513 against.

From Washington Times:

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

 

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

 

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.

 

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

 

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

 

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

At this point what is even the point of commenting on these increasingly more surreal developments. When one encounters news like these, what can one say but... "Banana republic". In the meantime, America is in the second, or third year, frankly who is even counting anymore, without any formal budget. But it sure has a very much informal spending program...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

What Senate?  What House?   This is all just pure theater.  The Red Team and Blue Team both share equal blame for bringing us to the abyss.  

PivotalTrades's picture

Why do you deny that the philosphy that the government is the answer is the central plank of the Democrats.

LetThemEatRand's picture

The Blue Team and the Red Team are both completely captured by the oligarchs.  There is no philosophy, just theater.  George Bush grew government more than the guy before him.  Clinton grew government more than the guy before him.  Bush Sr. grew government more than the guy before him.  Reagan grew government more than the guy before him.  Show me the difference in what they do, not what they say.

CrazyCooter's picture

... grew government more than the guy before him.

You can continue this trend until ... Eisenhower. I use this trivia often to slap Republican friends around who think the party is about small government.

Regards,

Cooter

DISCLOURE: Registered Republican ... a hard money fiscal conservative.

toady's picture

Fiscal liberal, social conservative.

Gully Foyle's picture

toady

Screw social conservativism. I want a public parade of every freaky thing out there.

I crave entertainment.


nope-1004's picture

Definitive proof that Obama is a loser.  As was Bush and all the other bankster appointees.

This ship is going down.  Hopefully the "people" will regain this once free country, because the idiot politicos sure don't want to.

 

Oh regional Indian's picture

Looks like someone needs a little Unity in his Government.

And by the way, who IS Valerie Jarret? Why does she sound so familiar and creepy? Whazzup with her? I've read in places that she runs the show.

ori

world

tenpanhandle's picture

obviously, You are missing that parade as you speak.  "...entertain us!!!" -  Nirvana.

Freddie's picture

Eisenhower was good and even Reagan was not part of Skull & Bones so poppy tried to wack him and almost succeeded.   It was payback for this too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

Both parties suck but Barry and the Dems are even worse.  Name the Ron and Rand Paul of the Dem Party.  At least the GOP has 2 decent patriots.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Kucinich and Sanders both stand up for Liberty.  

The parties do have differences, which is exactly why even people who see the fraud continue to hold their noses and vote for their Team.  You are a perfect example.  Think about it really hard.  The status quo will not change so long as they are both in charge.

divide_by_zero's picture

They stand for statism masquerading as liberty, nothing there.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Some of us -- including the Founding Fathers of the United States -- believe you can have both a State and Liberty, and indeed that you need one to have the other.  

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That's what Ayn Rand believed. Of course she was wrong about that.

TMT's picture

Sanders is a self proclaimed socialist. Socialism does not = liberty you fucking statist.

Gully Foyle's picture

Freddie

Many years ago C-SPAN had one of the Texas conspiracy guys on.

He claimed that Reagan wanted to investigate the Tri-Lateral commision, one of the big conspiracy groups of the time if not this specific one. That Reagan made public speeches to that effect.

Then at the Republican convention TPTB forced Poppy on Ronny to shut him up.

Thus the anger.

Remember that the Bushes were NEVER allowed in the Reagans quarters at the white house.

Freddie's picture

+1

Reagan did not trust Poppy.   If you watch video and look at pictures of 1976 Convention - Reagan lost the floor fight to Ford. Reagan gave an incredible speech - the crowd was having buyers remorse from it too.  Reagan turned down Ford's offer to be VP.  On stage you will see Ford and his family applauding Reagan with tri-Lateral's brother Nelson Rockefeller standing right there.

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

I don't think Reagan was an oligarch stooge because they tried to get rid of him.  Everyone after him - is a stooge.

VP's wacking Presidents was nothing new. Just ask LBJ.  Who got insanely rich(er) off Vietnam?  If you search around YouTube you will find a video by a smart older guy who did metal spectometry or something.  He did detailed analysis and found the JFK kill shot came from a sewer grate. He had it down to the actual spot.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You can believe what you want about Reagan, but he started the deficit machine and massively grew government during his eight years.  He did give a good speech, though. 

Bring the Gold's picture

He was more or less a zombie after the assassination attempt. Poppy had 12 years.

Ookspay's picture

Obviously, you are under 40, age or IQ, you pick!

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"Since he has no program and no ideology to offer, his likeliest motive for entering the Presidential race is power lust.''-- Ayn Rand on the candidacy of Ronald Reagan

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/07/obituaries/07randobit.html

kralizec's picture

Reagan = Deficits, nice, right out of the MFM phrasebook word for word! 

If you bothered to check the facts, or better yet lived through them as I did you would know that it was the DemonRats in Congress that "promised" cuts that never came so Reagan could have his tax cuts and military spending.  But far be it from me to suggest DemonRats are lying, decietful fucks...sometimes people have to experience that more personally to realize it is true.  And the only "massive" increase Reagan was part of was repairing our military that was run down to shit by Carter, I know, I was there.  I guess that exposes your pro-Code Pink streak.

Good luck on your journey.

Ookspay's picture

1) George Washington

2) Ronald Wilson Reagan

3) Thomas Jefferson

 

LetThemEatRand's picture

The actor certainly convinced you, didn't he.

Let me just ask you... How much did he grow the deficit?  Any idea?

Ookspay's picture

I have no time to disabuse or abuse you... Ironically, you're probably a Krugman Keynesian who would normally say defecits don't matter. Got Koolaid?

Acorn10012's picture

Is it the Congress that spends money?

LetThemEatRand's picture

And the President who signs the budget, yes?

odatruf's picture

No.  The President does not sign the budget. 

Kobe Beef's picture

JFK kill shot = William Greer

oldman's picture

@Gully Gully,

Reagan was an actor. He's dead. I don't even know what his true name was-----not many do----let him rest in peace is all I can say

thanks    om

Ookspay's picture

FYI Oldman, His REAL name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was a great president and a good man, and you are just old and ignorant.

LetThemEatRand's picture

And you are _______ and ignorant.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Perhaps ookspay got some trickle-down love from Raygun!

ori

Ookspay's picture

Just because you may need some balance in your Reagan diet...

In the late 70's and early eighties the Soviet Union was going broke, they were expanding all over the globe in an effort to try to fund and save their failing system. Reagan almost singlehandedly stopped them, thus bankrupting and destroying them without ever firing a shot, perhaps saving the entire globe, but for sure liberating tens of millions of people.

Raygun indeed!

Long Live the Great Ronald Reagan! You wacko liberal revisionists will not spout your crap uncecked by the Spook!

Acorn10012's picture

His real name was Zool...better known as the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

Living through the 70's, I thought he helped turn America around.

Bring the Gold's picture

JFK was a Dem and not S&B and they shot him too, didn't mess around either. Same with his brother RFK. So yeah, you're either part of the team or you get shot. As to your Ron Paul statement I agree. I actually agreed with everything you said, just felt that JFK and RFK deserved mention as well.

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Just read a great bio of Ike by Michael Korda. I'm a (former) Dem and really appreciated the man. A little humility and reasonableness and lack of hubris would help these fuckers today. Would also help if pols were required to study some history.

KennyG09's picture

KennyG09 reflection on 1 year of Zerohedge membership and toast:

- Fight club has one rule: Do not speak about fight club. I ask fellow ZH'ers; trolls and diehards alike: Why should fight club have rules if our current power wielders don't follow any?

- I have seen countless arguments for gold standards, no governments, ron paul, destruction of "crazy doomer libertarian psycho assclowns" - but I hardly ever see arguments for the destruction of fractional reserve banking. Why is this so? The Fed is only an istitution set up for governments to profit from fractional reserve banking and to keep said system in place [which private banks started and gov's got jealous of - Florence, Bank of Amsterdam, etc, etc.]. Gold standards, new governments, and ending the Fed won't change that. Outlaw fractional reserve banking; period.

Other observations:

- Where's Robo?

- I can't eat gold but I can eat my dividend paying stocks and Fried Rat Notes

- Cubicle Monkeys need loving too.

- US citizenism

- Civis Mundi

Take care you ZH'ers - I raise my Jack n' Coke to great fights in the future.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Not sure who and what you've been reading on ZH but End the FED and fractional reserve lending has been a steady mantra here for a long time now. 

KennyG09's picture

I've seen plenty of end the Fed...which is great n' all but wouldn't change the perpetual credit expansion machine of fractional reserve banking.  It must just be my experience not seeing much talk about fractional reserve banking. Cheers :)

smb12321's picture

Kenny, the quality and quantity of the comments are in indirect proportion to the technical nature of the article.  THings like obesity, Israel, gold going to $20,000 or  wacko conspiracies gets TONS of imprecise gramatically incorrect replies.   Technical articles get 1/3 the comments and many are of the order, "Yeah, bitchez!"

Fractional banking is also one of my pet peeves as is multiple taxation. The State can get involved in every detail of human existence due to the amounts raised by  multiple taxation and massive borrowing. If it had to exist on single taxation only (and no borrowing) we would truly have a limited government.

Oh regional Indian's picture

smb, this is clearly not a pure finance site.

And these are clarly NOT financial times. 

Perhaps you need the Technical Take?

ori

toady's picture

Alternative title:

Obama Haters Unite!