• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

No Wonder we Can't get a Budget Passed!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Senate rejects Rubio abortion bill

By Pete Kasperowicz - 03/22/13 08:05 PM ET





The Senate on Friday evening rejected a Republican amendment to the 2014 budget that calls for new criminal penalties for abortions performed on minors outside their home state.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the budget that encourages passage of his Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. That bill makes it a crime to transport minors across state lines to obtain an abortion, and requires doctors to give 24 hours notice to parents before performing an abortion.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/289969-senate-shoots-down-rubios-abortion-bill#ixzz2OK6ioafD
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Now all you fine Repub cultists explain to me what the He!! this abortion amendment has to do with our budget :???:

All these amendments and riders is the reason we needed the line item veto which Guiliani got repealed as unconstitutional.....

Line Item Veto Re-Enactment Activity of 2009

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation of a limited version of the line-item veto. This bill would give the president the power to withdraw earmarks in new bills by sending the bill back to Congress minus the line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a majority vote under fast track rules to make any deadlines the bill had...

Supporters of the line-item veto argue that the provision would make the President more accountable for federal spending. Also, the line-item veto can be used to prevent the enactment of controversial rider amendments that powerful legislators have sometimes inserted into important bills, or at least it can be used to ensure that someone elected at the national level is accountable for the enactment of such amendments. Without the line-item veto, Presidents have often felt compelled to sign controversial riders into law even if they did not support them. Bob Barr's former 2008 Libertarian Party running mate Wayne Root has also endorsed the line-item veto to go with his libertarian political views on spending while also suggesting the lifting of the Congressional ban on presidents impounding bills.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Make each amendment a Bill within itself. No need for a line item veto then........ Less laws will be a good thing.

You really want your grandaughters to be hauled out of state for an unwanted child abortion?

You act as though this was the problem with the last 4 non-budget years. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Make each amendment a Bill within itself. No need for a line item veto then........ Less laws will be a good thing.

I'll agree with that- but it won't happen either because the Congressmen won't be able to do their favors for their lobbyists or send pork home that way...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Make each amendment a Bill within itself. No need for a line item veto then........ Less laws will be a good thing.

I'll agree with that- but it won't happen either because the Congressmen won't be able to do their favors for their lobbyists or send pork home that way...

From what you posted earlier, you are fine with pork. You just want to get all you can. :roll:
I would just as soon have the money going to help 70,000 Montanans get coverage than have it all go to New Yorkers and Californians... If Alabamy doesn't want it fine with me-- the more that turn it down- the more that's available for the states that take it... Even 90% 10 years from now will help a lot of our folks out... Several MT counties average income is not too much higher than $15,400- with several of the neighboring counties being $22,000- and Montana as a whole's average per capita income only being $24,600...

Senility bothering you again? :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Make each amendment a Bill within itself. No need for a line item veto then........ Less laws will be a good thing.

I'll agree with that- but it won't happen either because the Congressmen won't be able to do their favors for their lobbyists or send pork home that way...

From what you posted earlier, you are fine with pork. You just want to get all you can. :roll:
I would just as soon have the money going to help 70,000 Montanans get coverage than have it all go to New Yorkers and Californians... If Alabamy doesn't want it fine with me-- the more that turn it down- the more that's available for the states that take it... Even 90% 10 years from now will help a lot of our folks out... Several MT counties average income is not too much higher than $15,400- with several of the neighboring counties being $22,000- and Montana as a whole's average per capita income only being $24,600...

Senility bothering you again? :???:

I wouldn't call that Pork-- as its a government program offered to EVERY state- take it or leave it... Pork is just for your localized representing area-- or for a single Lobbyists benefit...


Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
maybe "pork" might be defined as those dollars spent on a specific industries, in specific regions, which have the potential to give back, with campaign contributions.

OT hates those solyndra stimulus dollars...speaks out against them all the time.

:lol: :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Make each amendment a Bill within itself. No need for a line item veto then........ Less laws will be a good thing.

I'll agree with that- but it won't happen either because the Congressmen won't be able to do their favors for their lobbyists or send pork home that way...

From what you posted earlier, you are fine with pork. You just want to get all you can. :roll:
I would just as soon have the money going to help 70,000 Montanans get coverage than have it all go to New Yorkers and Californians... If Alabamy doesn't want it fine with me-- the more that turn it down- the more that's available for the states that take it... Even 90% 10 years from now will help a lot of our folks out... Several MT counties average income is not too much higher than $15,400- with several of the neighboring counties being $22,000- and Montana as a whole's average per capita income only being $24,600...

Senility bothering you again? :???:

Mike leaves OT in a crumpled whimpering heap. :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
maybe "pork" might be defined as those dollars spent on a specific industries, in specific regions, which have the potential to give back, with campaign contributions.

OT hates those solyndra stimulus dollars...speaks out against them all the time.

:lol: :lol:

Honestly, you do have to admire the man. For someone who so often gets his ass handed to him, he keeps coming back for more. :D
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Now all you fine Repub cultists explain to me what the He!! this abortion amendment has to do with our budget :???:

All these amendments and riders is the reason we needed the line item veto which Guiliani got repealed as unconstitutional.....

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has this evening introduced an amendment to the Senate budget bill that would require senators to electronically file campaign finance reports, the Center for Public Integrity has learned.

The move comes a month after Tester re-introduced legislation toward the same goal.

Senate campaign committees are the only federal political committees not required to file their financial disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission. As a result, it can take weeks, if not months, to get detailed information about who is bankrolling senators and Senate hopefuls.
"This is one other way to tackle this problem, trying to get senators and Senate candidates to file online," Tester spokeswoman Andrea Helling told the Center for Public Integrity. "We are pushing for a vote but whether or not we get one is to be determined."

Hey Oldtimer, you Democrat cultist, what does Tester's e-filing amendment have to do with the Federal Budget? :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
PLEASE Ol Democrat Cultist explain this Budget Bill Amendment

Nevada Democratic Sen. Reid and Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey want to take a "sense of the Senate" on whether terrorists should be allowed to have guns

:shock:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Just wondering Oldtimer do you think Reid and Murray allowed a vote on these three amendments.

Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, McCaskill, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida and Ayotte would place an outright ban on Senate earmarks.

- Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts wants to stop the federal government from using federal funds to market the Affordable Care Act.

- Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn would withhold the paycheck of the director of the Office of Budget and Management until the president submits a budget.

or this one

Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter wants to end a welfare program that provides mobile phones to the poor. For those who are on welfare, he would drug test them.

Nope I don't think they did either but I'd have to say they all have something to do with the Budget. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
And so you know why there were well over 5oo amendments maybe this will explain it Oldtimer.
Welcome to vote-o-rama 2013, where senators can file as many amendments as they please for the budget vote. For most Senate bills, the majority leader has the power to restrict the number of amendments introduced by members, but with budget resolutions, there are virtually no limits. It was 2009 the last time the Senate voted on a budget, so members have been piling up ideas for years.

On Friday, lawmakers dusted them off for their day in the spotlight. Although these pieces of legislation will not become law, the exercise offers the senators an opportunity to give their pet ideas exposure. Sometimes members will introduce amendments from their political opponents because they know they will fail. Other amendment votes can serve as a trial run: A successful vote here means there's a fair chance it could pass later.

You have Reid to thank, :wink: As if he would have had a Budget vote in the past four years, or allowed some of these Senators to introduce their bills on the floor for a vote, not all of these amendments would have been collected up and presented when HE COULDN"T STOP THEM. He couldn't stop them from being introduced so he limited the time in which they could be introduced and voted on. :mad:

And you wonder why you have a Dysfunctional Congress, REID IS WHY. :roll: But keep blaming the Republicans we all know how gitty that makes you. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Seems Oldtimer is so busy checking cows he is missing this thread. :wink:

So I guess I better bump it up to the top so he can explain why Reid is questioning the Senate on what they think about terrorists having guns during the US BUDGET BILL TALKS.

ANd what them having guns has to do with the Budget bill unless Reid figures the US Tax payers are going to be funding Holders next Fast and Furious illegal gun operation supplying those terrorists with said guns. :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
still waiting Oldtimer :?

Is your munchausen's syndrome telling you that you are pregnant now Tam? You have to wait 9 months for that.... :wink: :p :lol:

Sorry I didn't answer your question- but you addressed it to old Democrats and I don't fit the description... Remember- I don't follow the drumbeat of either cult...

As far as your answer- there were over 500 amendments added to the Budget Bill- and I'm not going to comment on every one...
As I said before in the thread if you had read or could comprehend :roll: - this type of action is the reason the President should have a line item veto and I agree with Mike that their should be a law/rule that each amendment should have to stand as an individual bill...

Altho I do remember one time when I- and almost every rancher in Montana cheered old Tester when he stuck an amendment on a must pass financial bill that got the wolves delisted as endangered and allowed the hunting season we now enjoy in Montana... Something that probably would not have passed as a stand alone bill...
 
Top