Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bayh: Obama should veto the omnibus budget bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:32 PM
Original message
Bayh: Obama should veto the omnibus budget bill
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 12:34 PM by blueclown
:wtf: :wtf:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612545277023901.html

This week, the United States Senate will vote on a spending package to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 is a sprawling, $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largess.

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

Drafted last year, the bill did not pass due to Congress's long-standing budgetary dysfunction and the frustrating delays it yields in our appropriations work. Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed dramatically, which is why the Senate should go back to the drawing board. The economic downturn requires new policies, not more of the same.


I am so sick of this passive-agressive attacks on our president by "Democrats".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wasn't Bayh on a lot of short lists for VP?
I can't believe where we'd be today if some of last year's predictions had come true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Aren't you glad we got Joe instead? Evan Bayh...yuck!
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 12:44 PM by Jennicut
Really, earmarks should be appropriated if that area genuinely needs money for something. If its not appropriate and is just a payback then it should be gotten rid of. Not all earmarks are bad...if they were we wouldn't have museums and what not. The economy right now might be a a good reason not to do earmarks but the Dems and Repubs are both guilty of it. I hate people who act high and mighty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Yes, and Rachel Maddow in particular devoted significant air time to explaining...
why he'd suck.

I'm glad Obama didn't go with Bayh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. I love this quote...
"Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither."

When he should have said:

"...or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is NO LONGER."

We haven't been concerned with fiscal prudence for 30 years, where the hell was Mr. Bayh?!? But sure, now that the D's are back in power (just as in '93) deficit spending is just absolutely the cause of all the countries problems!

Fer fucks sake...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. Let's try this again
Not the Obama budget.

Drafted before Dems had big edge in Senate.

Not the Obama budget.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. I undertand that it was all writen before the new house and senate
took power and that they had to start with that document and work with the newbies...

It's not Obama's budget and it is the budget that KO was taking apart last night when he was talking about so-called ear marks...

He should veto the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liskddksil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. With Democrats like this who needs Republicans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
31. Yes, damn that Russ Feingold and his neocon ways!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. He may be right...
...the bill was drafted under the Bush regime when the R's effectively controlled the Senate and the financial situation for the country was different.

It would be a bold move but one that might be warranted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baltoman991 Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Just saw
on CSPAN that Russ Feingold is going to vote against the omnibus bill as well. Seems like it's going to fall in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Americans: Shut the eff up, Bayh.
Get with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. You realize that this is NOT the Obama budget, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. So this is something that passed before the new congress
was sworn in?

I thought this was the thing that passed shortly before Obama was sworn in but after the new Congress was sworn in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. Appropriations bill - NOT the budget bill - please correct your title.
They are two very, very different things. Please correct your title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. shhh! I like watching these kind of threads unwind on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. How can you enjoy this?
It's so friggin facepalm inducing to continually see people that are interested in politics take absolutely no time to figure out the basics of the system. For my sanity's sake, please tell me how you do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. because some people are quick to jump like they're doing in this thread
... and even when someone like you points out what should be the obvious, they still come with the long knives.

It's so friggin facepalm inducing to continually see people that are interested in politics take absolutely no time to figure out the basics of the system.

After seeing it for so long, it gets comedic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. *** You little obsessive stalker you!
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 09:29 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. In all fairness, you have to include Feingold in your criticism. He's calling for a veto, too. n/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. to quote post #4: "With Democrats like this who needs Republicans"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I'm not catching your drift. I think most DUers would rank Feingold up near the top of Ds in Sen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. it's the irony... or the double standard. Any criticisms of Russ yet?
Anyone calling him a DINO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. Only on some issues- on others he's stark raving loon
For example, during the Bush years, the idiot believed that the Senate didn't have the right to advice and consent- and so would approve anyone for the cabinet, no matter how extreme their views- or how dishonest or unethical that they were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Not true - he would vote against them if he saw them as dishonest or unethical
He voted against Geitner. I know he voted against Gonzales, but he voted for Condi Rice. If he were consistent, he should have voted against Condi because Senator Kerry, who months before was the Presidential nominee and was getting briefings, said she was not honest in her testimony. (I would guess on Pakistan - where he pursued one question 4 times before she answered.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. As Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stupid things"
Evan Bayh's name produces a pavlovian response in some DUers. The actual facts of the debate don't seem to matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. absolutely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biopowertoday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
50. Looks like we will need some Republicans to get the bill passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Aww, but Feingold's a DU All-Star!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hey, look! It's Evan Bayh! Let's have an uninformed coniption!
Read what Bayh said. He and Feingold are right in their skepticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. The same is true today as in the 1990's
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 04:21 PM by depakid
The so called "centrist" Dems are just as dysfunctional and every bit as much (if not more) of a problem than Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. damn that Russ Feingold!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Feingold didn't go along with the dergulatory craze like the corrupt Republican enablers
Who to this day FAIL to acknoledge their responsibility for not only the current crisis- but the also the acounting failures that led to Enron, Worldcom, et al.

Among many other things.

So I'll grant him that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. but he did go along with the GOP's impeachment proceedings, breaking with Dems at every turn
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 04:36 PM by wyldwolf
and we never knew how was going to vote until the day of the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Like I said in an earlier post- the guy's sometimes a loon.
How to square that with his position on advice and consent?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. never like bayh....democrat lite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. How is this "Democrat lite"?
Stripping lobbyist pork out of a budget reolution is a Republican priority? Yeeeeah, ok. You realize that Thad Cochran, an oily insider GOP senator from Mississippi, supports your position, right?

Obama campaigned on clamping down on pork, earmarks, and budgetary flimflammery, and I for one am glad to see Bayh and Feingold pushing for this in the senate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
30. Bayh doesn't live in Indiana. We need the money here to fix our decaying infrastructure
There are several shovel-ready projects waiting for the dough, including projects to repair potholes and provide clean water and sewer systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
47. ding ding ding we have a winner
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. DUers side with Thad Cochran over Russ Feingold
Welcome to the wrong side of the looking glass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. What's through the looking glass is calling for fiscal austerity
and delays in appropriations at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. You're confused
The judicious use of government spending to give the economy a keynsian kick-start is one thing.

Wasting money on nitwit pork barrel projects is another. Pork doesn't stimulate the economy, and only piles up more debt for a future generation to handle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. That's Republican talk
QED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Oh, bullshit
Paul Tsongas was a Republican? Bill Clinton is a Republican?

REAL Democrats want to see tax dollars go towards helping people, not towards helping lobbyists, special interests, or connected cronies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #42
52. As I mentioned QED
quod erat demonstrandum.

You've amply demonstrated your views, yet without any factual bases you continue- void of facts (and despite hints) with loaded language.

I gotta say- that's impressive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Isn't that what you did with "That's Republican talk?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. Bayh = DINO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Bayh&Feingold=Doing the right thing
So, how does it feel to be on the same side as a shady right wing hack like Thad Cochran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
43. there's your blue dog "democrat" for you. hey, all you DLC lickspittles on here, be ashamed.
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 08:20 PM by dionysus
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Olbermann went off on this resolution. Is he on the shit list now?
This is a holdover from the previous Congress. It is supported by some of the sleazier, lobbyist-compliant Republicans. Obama should circular file this piece of garbage and demand a more responsible bill.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. if that's the case there may be more than meets the eye. doesn't change my opinion of "blue dogs"
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 08:28 PM by dionysus
and it doesn't mean KO is right on everything either, got a vid of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. diohissy is another one of those confused ones you referred to earlier
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 09:06 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demhistorian Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
51. and he should. Thank you, Senators Bayh, Feingold, and Keith Olbermann
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC