Democrats turn against Barack Obama over spending plans

[Mountain Man]

telegraph.co.uk

As senior members of his economic team have been grilled by Congressional committees about the $3.6 trillion (£2.5 trillion) budget unveiled last week, a meeting of 14 Democrats was convened by Evan Bayh, senator for Indiana, to discuss how the president be might reined in.

. . .

The nascent conservative Democrat caucus could spell big trouble for Mr Obama as he tries to force through not only the budget but other spending plans in the coming months. The budget requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, but other bills require a "super-majority"of 60.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ing-plans.html

© source where applicable

Very interesting.

[JusticeMachine]

telegraph.co.uk

As senior members of his economic team have been grilled by Congressional committees about the $3.6 trillion (£2.5 trillion) budget unveiled last week, a meeting of 14 Democrats was convened by Evan Bayh, senator for Indiana, to discuss how the president be might reined in.

. . .

The nascent conservative Democrat caucus could spell big trouble for Mr Obama as he tries to force through not only the budget but other spending plans in the coming months. The budget requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, but other bills require a "super-majority"of 60.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ing-plans.html

© source where applicable

Very interesting.

The real problem is that the fiscally responsible Democrates are in the minority of the party. The rest will tow the line and we are still out of luck. (I was going to say scr*wed, but I didn't know if I would get edited.)

[Darth Executor]

Fiscally responsible politicians are a minority in general. If the Republican party was much better they wouldn't be in their current position.

[Mountain Man]

The real problem is that the fiscally responsible Democrates are in the minority of the party. The rest will tow the line and we are still out of luck.

Yes, but with Republicans almost unanimously voting against Obama, these 14 Democrats could be enough to tip the balance.

(I was going to say scr*wed, but I didn't know if I would get edited.)

"Screwed" is acceptable, but just a heads up, if it wasn't you'd still have been moderated for the above because even veiled profanity is considered a breach of tWeb rules.

[Little Shepherd]

Wow, when even Congressional Democrats are complaining about you spending too much, you know you've gone off the deep end!

[Ex Nihilo]

Blue Dog Democrats may see their day after all!

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what really sucks. That the conservatives are so unbelievably out of touch with reality, that they can't offer a reasonable minority opinion, other than the Wagstaff Doctrine.

I'm glad some of the Democrats are taking that roll. Obama's budget is huge and it doesn't seem to be making anything a priority, it is just broad spending hikes everywhere. Obama's budget notes nearly a tripling of the national debt in 10 or 12 years. That can't be allowed.

That said, I think it is utterly pathetic that conservatives would seem to use this as fuel to put on the fire, when in fact, it shows that the Democrats aren't this single group that can be whipped into loyalty like the Republicans were under the whip of DeLay. The Republicans never saw a deficit spending package they couldn't vote "yes" on, until the Democrats took control.

It is nice to see portions of the Democrat party note that there is an issue with the budget, when they, in fact, are in power.

[Mountain Man]

Obama's budget is huge and it doesn't seem to be making anything a priority, it is just broad spending hikes everywhere. Obama's budget notes nearly a tripling of the national debt in 10 or 12 years. That can't be allowed.

Not only that, Obama is -- again! -- breaking his campaign promise to veto any bill that contained earmarks.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not only that, Obama is -- again! -- breaking his campaign promise to veto any bill that contained earmarks.

It's $5 billion of a $400 billion bill, and those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 different job creating projects.

Pissing on about $5 billion when you are staring into an abyss of next year being a $1 trillion deficit is petty and stupid.

[shadowmaster]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.

This from the TWEB troll.

[shadowmaster]

Wash your mouth out, libby.

[Mountain Man]

It's $5 billion of a $400 billion bill, and those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 different job creating projects.

No, those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 pet projects slipped into the bill by senators and congressmen in order to keep their constituents happy. And regardless, Obama promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks, so either he's flip-flopped or he made a promise he never intended to keep.

[Mountain Man]

No "petty and stupid" is being a rabid uber-liberal.

Maybe he's taking this...

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, those 9000 earmarks represent 9000 pet projects slipped into the bill by senators and congressmen in order to keep their constituents happy. And regardless, Obama promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks, so either he's flip-flopped or he made a promise he never intended to keep.

You mean keep their constituents employed.

I don't think you realize how many civil infrastructure jobs require federal money for them to get off the ground. The answer is "most of them".