Obama budget goes down in flames 0-99 in the Senate 0-414 in the House of Reps

[dario73]

it "faithfully" represented it?


Wow, that's just sad.  Putting someone else's name on it, writing it, submitting it, voting against it, and calling it a win.  WOW.  just, wow.  Weak, even by today's political standards.

It was the president's plan. There was NO CHANGE. This is evident by the following sentence:

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.

Again. Are there things with your brain?

[240 is Back]

It was the president's plan. There was NO CHANGE. This is evident by the following sentence:

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.

Again. Are there things with your brain?

to intentionally submit a plan they know they will vote down is a waste of tax dollars.  patentic waste of resources to 'make a point'?

[Soul Crusher]

to intentionally submit a plan they know they will vote down is a waste of tax dollars.  patentic waste of resources to 'make a point'?

Amazing - have you said the same thing about obama's insane budgets he knows are DOA?

Bro - you are getting as cracked in the head Himdenbitch. 

[dario73]

to intentionally submit a plan they know they will vote down is a waste of tax dollars.  patentic waste of resources to 'make a point'?

So you rather have the Democrats continue to waste time and spend MORE tax money by dragging the process along.  I got ya, sparky.

You are right. That  Dems should put forth a serious plan and stop playing politics. The GOP already did months ago and Dems shot it down.

I think this is the second time I agree with you, 180.

[240 is Back]

So you rather have the Democrats continue to waste time and spend MORE tax money by dragging the process along.  I got ya, sparky.

You are right. That  Dems should put forth a serious plan and stop playing politics. The GOP already did months ago and Dems shot it down.

I think this is the second time I agree with you, 180.

dems deserve a LOT of criticism for not submitting a budget.   But this action did waste a lot of money - taxpayer $. 

533 people (and their teams) had to come into work (at a very hefty salary) for a public 'stunt'.

[tonymctones]

dems deserve a LOT of criticism for not submitting a budget.   But this action did waste a lot of money - taxpayer $. 

533 people (and their teams) had to come into work (at a very hefty salary) for a public 'stunt'.

you act like they werent going to get paid if they didnt...

they get paid either way...sunk cost ring a bell?

probably not eh

[240 is Back]

you act like they werent going to get paid if they didnt...

they get paid either way...sunk cost ring a bell?

probably not eh

its not a sunk cost, because these congressman could have used that time to write, introduce, and vote upon other bills.  Had they not spent their time on this, they woudln't have been in their offices doing nothing.  they would have worked on other bills.

WIKI: "In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered."

Um, sorry but I dont know how the fck you're calling this a sunk cost.  There are other options - other tasks that would have been completed with the time spent.  Even if their only action was for the 515 of them to refresh their email once - that is some work getting done.

IMO, your anxious rush to prove me wrong with a phrase you're using in Econ 1 has led to you calling this a sunk cost when it's not - When you get to the chapter on opportunity cost, we can try to measure what % of value was at play here.   Maybe sitting in their office was much less, but a 'sunk cost'?   No, sorry, doesn't apply here when we can safely assume the 535 members would have done SOMETHING to earn their salary, something under their job title.  They would have been productive - if 1 of 535 picked up a piece of garbage on the floor, it wasn't a sunk cost.  There were other options for that time.

[24KT]

That being said - did repubs really write this bill, then gloat when it was shot down by both sides?  hahahaha  PATHETIC!!!!!!

Clearly someone with the ability to cut through the BS, subterfuge and useless distractions to get to the heart of the matter.

Keep it up!

[tonymctones]

its not a sunk cost, because these congressman could have used that time to write, introduce, and vote upon other bills.  Had they not spent their time on this, they woudln't have been in their offices doing nothing.  they would have worked on other bills.

WIKI: "In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered."

Um, sorry but I dont know how the fck you're calling this a sunk cost.  There are other options - other tasks that would have been completed with the time spent.  Even if their only action was for the 515 of them to refresh their email once - that is some work getting done.

IMO, your anxious rush to prove me wrong with a phrase you're using in Econ 1 has led to you calling this a sunk cost when it's not - When you get to the chapter on opportunity cost, we can try to measure what % of value was at play here.   Maybe sitting in their office was much less, but a 'sunk cost'?   No, sorry, doesn't apply here when we can safely assume the 535 members would have done SOMETHING to earn their salary, something under their job title.  They would have been productive - if 1 of 535 picked up a piece of garbage on the floor, it wasn't a sunk cost.  There were other options for that time.

its still a sunk cost cracker jack highlighted by the use of that past tense in your sentence you ignorant fuck!!!!!!!!

LMFAO so what university did you get your undergrad and MBA from again?

LOL goodness fucking gracious you dip shit!!!

[Skip8282]

Doesn't matter....if you haven't looked at those 200 pages, you're not going to vote for it.  Both parties have been pulling this shit for over 20 years.....it needs to stop because it accomplishes nothing for us.

1.  Not the type of bill they need to read in its entirety.
2.  It's not uncommon for them not to read bills, often having an aide or CoS do it.
3.  Of course it's a political stunt.
4.  Just give it a rest already - it's obvious you're clueless.