+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/16/2018 08:30 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.882 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/03/2009 08:06 AM ID: 78014 Permalink   

3.6 Trillion Dollar Obama Budget Passed By House and Senate


In a late session the House and Senate both passed the 2010 3.6 trillion dollar Obama budget set to start October 1st. In the House, with votes that fell close within party lines, it went 233-196; the Senate vote was also along party lines at 55-43.

A Republican alternative offered up was shot down with a vote of 293-137. It made huge cuts in Obama's spending levels, 4.8 trillion dollars less within 10 years, while calling for more tax cuts at the same time.

20 Democrats voted no in the House along with all 176 Republicans, and in the Senate, two Democrats voted no along with all 41 Republicans. The budget does not need President Obama's signature to be enacted.

    WebReporter: cray0la Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
The White House issued a statement hailing the House vote as "another step toward rebuilding our struggling economy."

LOL ya right.
  by: cray0la     04/03/2009 08:09 AM     
That GOP budget was so bad that 38 Republicans voted against it?

Harry Reid was hilarious when he was talking about the GOP budget and said, "If you like this recession, you'll love the Republican budget."

Poor Republicans. At least Michael Steele can straighten this mess out, right? :D
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 08:14 AM     
  the opposition  
on the republican side was of the medicare proposal in it.

otherwise im sure they all would have voted for it, since medicare is broke, alot of people who pushed for it to be in there said it would cut alot of cost from medicare.
  by: cray0la     04/03/2009 08:38 AM     
Harry Rieds comment makes no sense,
so not spending so much money wastefully and cutting taxes giving people more of their own money will create a recession?

please, what dingy harry and crazyolsi have been spending will cause a DEPRESSION.
  by: cray0la     04/03/2009 08:40 AM     
It's always amusing to me how you seem to perceive reality completely backwards. I think you ingest too many Rush Limbaugh talking points -- watch out; I've heard they can lead to you traveling to the Dominican Republic as a sex tourist.

Bush got us here. The spending is intended to fix the economy. Obama isn't raising taxes on anybody until 2011, when he intends to let the Bush tax cut on the rich expire.

Bush asked the American people to, using a phrase you and Fat Boy Limbaugh love so much, "bend over and grab their ankles" while he and his rich, elitist Ivy League brethren screwed our economy. It's nice to see that now that Bush, the love of your life, has left office, you've developed a concern for how the economy is run, but you still have lots to learn.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 08:48 AM     
  its funny how  
you and jon smith who rally so much against tax cuts because "there ancient republican talking points" and your boy ran on tax cuts.

why not let those bush tax cuts expire on those gosh darn rich right now??

right?? they dont deserve anything!\

i think your having withdrawls and convulsions because you seem to forgot everytime i trash talked bush on his spending and how he flushed conservatism and his free market stance down the toilet.
  by: cray0la     04/03/2009 09:01 AM     
Why not let the tax cuts on the rich expire right now?

(Wow, you don't even see the trap you've walked into.)


See, the economy slows when something like a housing crisis causes people to spend less of their money and business in general starts to slow down, meaning companies can't afford to keep on as many workers, leading to higher unemployment, which obviously leads to even slower spending since there are fewer earners. It's a downward spiral.

The spending being done now by the government is intended to accelerate the pace of spending in our economy, picking up the pace of business, causing companies to need to hire more workers, which would cause more people to have more money to spend, which would further speed up the economy.

But if you're trying to do this, the last thing you want to do is take any action that might cause anybody to decide to spend less. Hence, you do not raise taxes for anybody while the economy is in recession.

It really makes a lot of sense and is easy to understand. You'd get it perfectly if you weren't simply determined to hate President Obama and everything he does because he happens to have a "D" after his name.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 09:21 AM     
  One last thing @cray0la  
You never trashed Bush for a thing. If anybody would like to see what cray0la apparently thinks of as trash-talking Bush -- but what is actually, and obviously, blaming Democrats for everything that goes wrong -- check this out:
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 09:31 AM     
  since when...  
since when did fiscal responsibility become so important to the GOP? eight years of spend, spend, spend and now they pretend to be bean counters.
  by: monstrddg   04/03/2009 10:40 AM     
  The problem is . . .  
everyone expects a quick fix, and amagic button to do that.
  by: jimmieballer26   04/03/2009 01:36 PM     
"you seem to forgot everytime i trash talked bush on his spending and how he flushed conservatism and his free market stance down the toilet."

I had to interject here because I know for a fact you never once bashed Bush. If anything you got on your knees and worshiped him like he was your messiah! Then you would blame problems created by Bush, IE: TARP, totally on democrats yet forget to leave out you anti-conservative buddies Bush and co.
  by: slavefortheman     04/03/2009 02:51 PM     
  Republican's Train of Thought  
"We have a problem."
"Tax cuts!"
"It has nothing to do with that."
"Tax cuts!"
"We've tried that for the past eight years."
"Tax cuts!"
"...are you listening to anything we're saying?"
"Tax cuts!"
  by: Kolman   04/03/2009 02:53 PM     
Man you left out a huge portion of their tiny train of thought:

"We have a problem."
"Tax cuts and its liberals faults!"
"It has nothing to do with that."
"Tax cuts and its liberals faults!"
etc. etc.
  by: slavefortheman     04/03/2009 03:06 PM     
  Maybe I missed something  
but I thought I had read somewhere that the Bush Budget never included the wars, and that this one does?
  by: NoTalentAssclown     04/03/2009 04:11 PM     
You're absolutely right! Bush asked for "emergency spending" every three months to fund the wars.

So on paper, it was ... I don't know -- supposed to appear that Bush looked up and said, "Hey -- I just realized, those wars aren't over with! Man, have I been busy, that *totally* escaped my mind. Well, we need to throw more money at them, obviously ..." And that he did this every three months for over six straight years.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 06:13 PM     
we need to stop focusing on shifting money around to balance the budget and look more towards generating income as a country. i think we need to find a thing that we can produce that can generate income.

when your living paycheck to paycheck the silly thing to do is to go to a payday loan provider to cover your bills, because then you start heading down a road you dont want to go down. what you do is cut out the luxuries and look for another job/better job. but of course, thats on a small scale, but i dont think printing more money is a viable solution.
  by: teh_epic     04/03/2009 06:40 PM     
Thats just crazy talk. Applying common sense to real world problems! You must be some sort of kook if you think that will fly!</sarcasm>
  by: slavefortheman     04/03/2009 06:48 PM     
  @teh_epic, slave  
Are you talking about a state-owned industry? When did you guys go socialist?
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 07:10 PM     
  The world lost trust in the Dollar!  
But no problem, the new currency XDR is already on the horizont, together with the Amero. The dollar will soon be history, it does not matter anymore how much they are spending of it, as China, Russia and the world gets out of it at the moment.
  by: evilrat   04/03/2009 07:31 PM     
I think epic was referring to spending and not nationalization. And for businesses to try to start making products rather than importing everything. He reffed something say we need to create a new product. I say leave this up to corporations but I am betting the hypothetical that epic was talking about was something like electric cars or some sort of clean energy.

On a side note, I am a supporter of socialism of certain aspects of every nation. That being health care and education. I think those 2 things should be provided by every country and people should not have to pay out of pocket for them.

Other than that I am more of an mix of political and economic ideologies. Libertarianism, marxism, etc. There are bits we can take from all of them that are good that I think can benefit the world.

However the world is being ran by plutocrats that only care of obtaining more wealth and power.

Back onto topic though, this budget and spending plans are not socialist. Socialism by definition benefits the masses. These things have only benefited private corporations and a small number of individuals.

Some may claim it as socialism but what this is is thievery plain and simple. They stole 13 Trillion dollars of yours and mine money in the last 6 months and they plan on stealing even more! They take our money and give it to their friends and buddies on wall street while those on main street starve!

No this is not socialism. Lenin would have some ill mannered words to say to these people if he were alive today!
  by: slavefortheman     04/03/2009 07:45 PM     
I love to watch liberals and conservatives debate on what is the best way to destroy the US.

Republican mindset: Let em keep their money and tell them what they can and can't spend it on because they are immoral.

Democrat mindset: Take their money and spend it for them, because they aren't smart enough to make such decisions.

Both: Completely wrong.

  by: bbeljefe     04/03/2009 07:50 PM     
I guess I can see what your saying there, it was a poorly worded example.

I was thinking more along the lines of stop giving unecessary handouts to people and stop spending and start focusing how we can earn more money. Like attractions to increase international tourism, or a new type of good that can be exported or even some type of technology that makes our workers more efficient than outsourcing to other countries - something that makes other countries want to use our people to work with their businesses. Not so much on a governmental scale, but more of a giving the people the tools needed for them to make money. Like teaching the people how to fish instead of just handing them the fish...

I'm not claiming to understand world economics. But I do know a little bit of how a business should run and when things are looking bad I'm pretty sure the right solution isn't to keep dumping money into a failing system - I would start by looking at how I could make the company more efficient and any possible room for expansion. Apple is a good example of this, they started as a computer company, then they moved into portable mp3 players, then mobile phones, more than likely they are looking at taking over other market shares somewhere.

Anyway, basically, I disagree with all the debt we are creating as a country.
  by: teh_epic     04/03/2009 08:10 PM     
Oh, in that case I completely agree. The U.S. has been treated increasingly like a consumer market for the last several decades. We definitely do need to make stuff.

The reason I find the trend worrisome is that the point of retail is to sell something for more than it cost you to produce, in order to get a profit. If we're not selling anything, we're not profiting. If all we do is buy what other countries sell, we get poor as they get rich.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2009 08:19 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: