Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Budget not worth the wait

March 28, 2013

Well, it wasn’t worth the wait. The budget approved this past Saturday by the U.S. Senate, that is. Under Democrat control, the Senate has not approved a budget in four years....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

JackAaah

Mar-28-13 9:27 AM

If that budget has lots and lots of gifts, I feel I know it had been well worth waiting this long for.

Votes For Gifts

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-28-13 10:01 AM

The fiscal 2009 deficit belongs to Bush. 1.4 trillion dollars. Just sayin'

Oh, and surprise, deficit is falling. Economic recoveries tend to do that.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-28-13 10:15 AM

Economic recovery?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Curly1

Mar-28-13 10:17 AM

Backward math!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Mar-28-13 10:49 AM

Typical right wing biased article.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-28-13 12:16 PM

Pres. Obama could say pretty please and the MDN or is it the Wheeling WV. editorial staff would characterize it as a DEMAND!

Yes, economic recovery, take the blinders off.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-28-13 7:25 PM

"State controlled media" Straight from the Limpman's mouth.

The recession ended 3 1/2 years ago.

And we will never be Cyprus or Greece or Spain et.al. But if you believe that we will and you convince enough "low information" citizens that we will then maybe you'll manage to drag the economy in to a perpetual funk. I prefer to be more optimistic than that.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-28-13 10:32 PM

Dusty--- The Limpman is the ****** smuggling Limbaugh. It's an ironic appellation.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rajiihammr

Mar-28-13 10:34 PM

I can say limp, but I can't say why Agra.?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

anonym

Mar-28-13 11:12 PM

rajiihammr: Actually the FY 2009 budget was signed by President Obama on March 11, 2009. If you recall the Democrats controlled both branches of Congress, and President Bush said he would veto budget if it included bloated deficit spending, so they waited until President Bush was out of office to submit the budget.

The budget President Bush submitted to Congress had total expenditures of $3.107 trillion and deficit spending at $407 billion, but the budget that President Obama signed had total expenditures of $3.518 trillion and deficit spending of $1.413 trillion. www[dot]gpoaccess[dot]gov/USbudget/fy09/hist

The irony this is the same budget that then Senators Obama & Biden help draft, but will not take any responsibility for the increased deficit spending since it was signed.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProgressiveLiberal

Mar-29-13 1:12 AM

anonym, your forgetting that little non-consequential trillion dollar pair of wars Bushey waged that were off of the books.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-29-13 8:18 AM

Do you think the historians will see it the same way as the liberals when they write the history books?

Obama was President and could have been a good one if he didn't have to deal with Bush problems.

Obama was cursed by the Bush years and therefore he was unable to stimulate the economy.

Will the Historians write about Obama being under the Curse of Bush and therefore it made him a failure?

So Libs what if Obama decides to go to War with Korea? Are you all behind him 100%?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-29-13 11:23 AM

But Bill But Bill the Democrats are against war.. They want to hold out the peace pipe and make good.

Don't worry Obama will give them money to leave him alone until after the next election

Obama likes to buy his way out with our money rather then fix anything that will make him have to say yes or no.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-29-13 11:27 AM

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s latest threat is his most specific yet – a vow to strike the U.S. mainland, complete with a photo on the state-run media showing Hawaii, Washington, Los Angeles and Austin, Texas, as the targets of choice

But not to worry Bill Kim Jong has the same set of gonads Obama has Just a different color in a different country .. Neither have any guts they just run off at the mouth.. talks cheap and neither of them have the ability to make sound decisions.. Just idle threats from both of them..

Sorta like the lil banty rooster and the lil banty hen..

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-29-13 3:30 PM

Billgarr did you back up George Bush?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-29-13 3:33 PM

And No I would not back up Obama on anything. He has told more lies then any other POTUS..

He is the guy crying wolf and when the wolf finally does show up none of us are going to believe the lying piece of dirt.

I don't support a guy who spends more money and refuses to cut anything. The guy has no brain. He even admitted he couldn't do math and that's his piddly little excuse for all the debt.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-29-13 4:47 PM

"A subsidy is money the Government gives to companies or individuals who make, (notice I didn't say earn), billions of dollars in profits yearly, with no taxes paid on profits or subsidies."

Veritas, if the $$ isn't earned, then you'll have to define "make" 'cuz I don't know what you're getting at with your comment.

"However, corporate welfare often subsidizes failing and mismanaged businesses and induces firms to spend more time on lobbying rather than on making better products. Why don't we ever hear about this form of govt. subsidizing failure???"

Whenever cons say Solyndra, the libs say Oil. Uh, impasse anyone?

My, oh, my.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-29-13 4:51 PM

"George W.Kim Jong Un"

So now billgrr says the way to villianize someone is to add "George W" in front of their name?

LOL!!!

You know I have to try this one:

"George W. Bill Garr"

Has a certain ring to it - thanks for the smile

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-29-13 4:54 PM

"villainize" for the spelling gurus

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-30-13 12:04 AM

Varicose sure doesn't have a clue does he/she/it?

Sorry not sure which gender you fall into varicose

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 12:27 PM

WA Post 6/12/12 "Solyndra was founded in Silicon Valley in 2004. The company planned to build solar panels without polysilicon. While Solyndra’s panels were more expensive to make, they were supposed to be cheaper to install, and the skyrocketing price of polysilicon gave the company a chance to compete in the market.

"The following year, the company was invited to apply for a government-guaranteed loan under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 — a law backed by Republicans and designed to “support innovative clean energy technologies.” A full application came in 2008, and the Department of Energy began a review.

"In March 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced a $535 million conditional loan guarantee to Solyndra — making it the first to receive a loan since the 2005 program began. At that point, administration officials pushed for the DOE to hasten its final decision on approving the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it on a planned trip to California

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 12:28 PM

cont..."The loan was funded with stimulus money and formally announced in September 2009.

"But Solyndra was already in trouble.

"In February of 2008 the price of polysilicon began to fall sharply, while Solyndra’s claims of cheaper installation costs were also in doubt. Chinese firms started to crowd out American ones on the solar panel market. Natural gas prices also fell, making investments in more or comparatively more expensive alternative energy less attractive.

"Management at the firm also made questionable spending decisions, wasting loan money on state-of-the-art equipment that went unused."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 12:33 PM

cont..."In March of 2010, an independent audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers questioned whether Solyndra could survive as a business, and even administration staff and close Obama allies in the venture capital world warned the White House about whether the company was a good bet, according to internal administration emails.

"Obama visited the company in a high-profile press event in May 2010, despite some of these warnings. The Energy Department persuaded the firm to delay layoffs until after the 2010 midterm elections, according to those emails.

"The DOE learned in December 2010 that Solyndra could not make its loan payment, in violation of its federal loan deal. Solyndra executives had been privately warning administration officials that the firm was at risk of liquidation.

"Yet in February 2011, the department restructured the loan, with some investors agreeing to provide Solyndra $75 million more in financing."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 12:35 PM

cont..."Part of the deal was that private investors, including family funds connected to Obama fundraising bundler George Kaiser, would be paid back before the government if Solyndra collapsed. The Kaiser-tied funds were already the largest investors in Solyndra.

"In August 2011, the company filed for bankruptcy.

"Congressional Republicans had been investigating the company’s loan since early in 2011. Republicans, in particular the outside group Americans for Prosperity, have attacked Obama repeatedly on the issue, suggesting he was helping friends by financing Solyndra because of Kaiser’s role as a major Obama fundraiser.

"Internal e-mails show political considerations infused almost every level of the decision-making on granting the Solyndra loan and later administration efforts to keep the company afloat."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-30-13 12:50 PM

Dems say Reps are subsidizing certain economic sectors, then Reps say Dems are subsidizing other certain economic sectors, depending upon each party's posture/pleasure, ad infinitum. It's always been pots calling kettles black. The country's "insolvency" is due to both parties' posturing, with rich & wealthy contributors thrown in for good measure.

Veritas, to portray oneself as completely non-partisan on any issue is not an easy task. I haven't seen a good example of it yet.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web