Neither the President nor the Senate can pay the troops.

[kentuck]

All spending bills have to originate in the Republican House of Representatives. When all is said and done and all the spin is spun, it is the House's responsibility to pass a budget. If they have to compromise with the devil to do so, that is their job. The President cannot do it. Harry Reid cannot do it.

As the troops and the Tea Baggers will soon find out, it is only the House that can pay them. If they want to hold the budget hostage to Planned Parenthood and NPR, that is their choice - that is not the choice of Harry Reid or the President.

Just as before, the people will eventually see who the responsible Party is when the House makes the decision they could have made all along. And Harry Reid and President Obama will have nothing to do with it. The people will not be bribed or blackmailed by a bunch of thugs.

[iwishiwas]

1. Maybe the Afgan Pres will pay the troops to leave?

[kentuck]

2. The Repubs may as well ask all Democrats to hang themselves...

...it ain't gonna happen and they know it. They are being totally irresponsible and are using the troops as a shield. Eventually they will do what they could have done all along and people will notice. Their lies have a very short shelf-life.

[vi5]

8. Repubs have asked Dems to hang themselves..

And the conversation has consistently been (at least among all of our elected Dems):

Repubs: "Hang yourselves"

Dems: "Well, we are most definitely not going to hang ourselves. How about shooting ourselves instead?"

Republicans: "Nope....hang yourselves."

Dems: "Well o.k. we'll hang ourselves, but can we at least have a good last meal?"

Repubs: "Nope....hang yourselves. No last meal."

Dems: (sneaks lint covered tic tac from pocket and shoves it in mouth) "HA! we showed you. We just made a last meal out of that lint covered tic tac! Mmmmmmm....delicious....it tastes like Victory!!!"

[WinkyDink]

3. Can they get the $$ from "Teach for America"? How about GE? Halliburton? Blackwater (or whatever)?

[inademv]

4. For the less observant person's perspective

wouldn't they be taken in by the fact that the Republican House DID pass a budget plan? Or am I grossly misinformed by the labeling of what they did pass. Wasn't HR-1 the Republican "budget" that was more riders than budget?

[kentuck]

5. For the less observant person, yes...

But anybody that studied civics or knows anything about the government knows that the House is only one part of the government but they have the responsibility to pass all spending bills. Then it must be agreed upon by the Senate, and then signed by the President. If you can't get everything you want, then you might have to compromise to get a bill passed. In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the Republican House of Representatives to pass a budget that is acceptable to the other two branches of government. When and if it is finally passed, we will see the Republicans pass a bill they could have passed all along. It will be obvious.

[Obamanaut]

6. One might wonder why there was no budget at the beginning of the fiscal

year FOR the fiscal year.

That was last Oct, the Dems had the WH, Senate, and the House. The budget is due the same time every year, it wasn't a surprise. The elections were still more than a month away, so all the (then) incumbents were still employed to do the nation's business - but it looks like they didn't get to it.

[Cid_B]

7. You answered your own question...

Budget would have been passed but everything in it would have been used in the election.

Maybe a simplistic answer but an accurate one i think,