Fine. At what point will government become so big that it will have the power to change the constitution at will? Not directly, but so many people will be beholden to the government that they will vote the way it tells them to.
I fear we are closer than you think to that point.
Your ‘fear’ being the operative word here.
Stop finding silly reasons to work up your fear.
And when does “the government” (as distinct from the Administration) ever tell the people how to vote? We are, in fact, much farther than you think from that point.
100% wrong. Obama’s first proposal was defeated in the Senate 97 - 0. Another was defeated in the House 441 - 0. The most recent one, which you are talking about, was forced to a vote by Senate Republicans and went down in flames 99 - 0. Republicans changed nothing in the bill. When Senate Republicans asked the Democrats to point out what was supposedly changed, ZERO Democrats stepped up to the plate to do so. I wonder why?
Those are the facts.
Both of those votes were political theater and were not actually about the content of Obama’s proposed budget (and unless you’re profoundly ignorant, you know this). The first time Democrats (including Obama) did not support it because it was supplanted by a more ambitious deficit-reduction proposal Obama laid out in a speech at GWU. Basically, the GOP forced a vote on this old bill that they knew the Democrats no longer supported just to be able to make the same talking points later that you’re making now. Congratulations, by the way, on fulfilling your shill duties just as the Republican party wants! The second time the bill was mangled beyond recognition. Both times it was useless political theater.
- 414 (not 441) - 0 = http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote
Ignorance fought, right?
I doubt it. Shields up, Ignoring level set to 9.5
OMG, remember how a few weeks ago you refused to pay attention to factual analysis of the polls? And how you were wrong?
It might be an idea to listen to Sinaptics here, as he is using facts, and he is right.
Paragraph 8, sentence 1. Ignorance rebuffed.
Paragraph 2, sentence 1. You’re welcome.
A Democrat claiming there’s a difference between the two while refusing to point out what those differences are. Color me shocked.
With any luck.
Here is Par 8, Sent 1: “No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years.” No idea what your point is- this is exactly what we have said- the Democrats, including Obama, had moved on to a different idea, and the Republicans only forced the vote for political purpose.
Here is Par 2, Sent 1 (of the link you put in the quote box): “Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.” No idea what your point is here.
Mediocre dodge. Based on the last few weeks, you might reconsider some of your “facts”. It’s a fact that the Republicans knowingly forced a vote on a budget that the Democrats (including Obama) did not support. It’s a reasonable and obvious supposition that they did this so that they (and you) could later say “Obama’s budget got no support”. To intelligent people, this was an obvious partisan political move. You are playing the role that the RNC desires perfectly.
The one takeaway from the election was supposed to be that the Media Entertainment Complex was lying to conservatives in order to keep their attention. Fortunately for Democrats, they are clearly not taking that lesson away.
OMG, you have to ask yourself, why would every Democratic Congress critter vote against the president’s budget? Don’t you think it’s just a little odd that not one Democrat supported him?
It just doesn’t make any sense unless the president put forth such a disaster of a budget that that not even his own party will support it (not likely) or that it was a complete political show in one way or another. (likely)
You seem to want to assert that the president’s budget was sooooo bad that nobody could support it. You’re going to have to prove that one.
I’m sure people could read. At any rate, who’s fault is it that Obama’s budget garnered zero votes? Senate Democrats?
Second link, not the first.
Too bad it wasn’t a dodge. Democrats wanted to cry foul, but when they were asked to explain the differences between the two, they refused. It’s reasonable and obvious to conclude, therefore, there were no fundamental differences between the two and the Democrats didn’t want egg on their faces (again).
Whose fault is it that a bill that no one supported got no votes? What a ridiculous question! No one supported the bill, including the President. Of course it got no votes! Whose fault is it that the Congress and the Senate had to waste their time voting on a bill that everyone knew no one supported? Hint- it’s not the Democrats.
Could you help me out? I’m really not sure which one you’re talking about. How about just copying the sentence?
No, this is not reasonable. It’s reasonable to conclude that the Republicans wasted everyone’s time voting on a bill they knew no one (including the President) supported, because it was overtaken-by-events, strictly for political purposes. They did it only because they wanted to put egg on the Democrats faces- pure political theater (please, please deny this if you disagree!). Luckily, the majority of voters sided with the Democrats.
It’s only ‘reasonable’ in the alternate reality you occupy. Each post you make is indicative of that problem.
Out here, in the Real World 
your ‘reasonable’ explanation is laughable.
Obama got re-elected because nothing bad really happened while he was in office, according to the general public.
Him being a centrist doesn’t matter. What matters is that the nation is keeping it’s head above water, and he’s viewed as a successful president. He got healthcare reform passed, he’s pulling the troops out of Iraq, and he caught Bin Laden.
Usually something really bad has to happen for an incumbent to not get re-elected. It only makes matters worse that Romney was known to everyone as someone lacking conviction, a politicians who panders to whomever and whatever will get him elected.